Warrior General Games

Total Absurdity.....hmmmm......ponderous man, really ponderous......

Has no bearing that on the way to this playoff run, we went through Cape Town, Spider Monkeys, Zombies, Mogadishu, and Congo, who last time I checked were all pretty darn good teams....and came away with W's.

I want to congratulate Congo on their quality victory, as I know....these guys are Good.

Originally posted by vorenus73
Originally posted by HawksFanNorth

Damn, I never expected 3 of 4 away teams to win. That's just crazy.... looks like another champion coming out of the Elephant conference.I think 3 of 4 away teams indicate pretty clearly that if you have the right gameplan, you can beat a team that outlevels you. So I do not think it is clear that Elephant will win.



Botswana had the right gameplan...We knew what they were gonna do, but had about 5-7 CRUCIAL plays go Cam's way for whatever reason.

Originally posted by evesong
Originally posted by Earth Wan

I'll have to say that the 4 best teams of the Lion Conference lost (even though cape town was 5 seed they were far and away better than the spider monkees). Total absurdity.

This is probably the most balanced/competitive conference in GLB. Other than the bottom two teams, every team is competitive to a degree. No single team has dominated throughout this season. There are some teams that boosted early and got off to a great start (and earning higher seeds along the way), but that by no means makes them the top team in the conference. Both Outlaws and us were 7-1 in the second half of the season. Spider Monkeys did beat Cape Town earlier this season, so these victories should not come as a shocker to everyone. The only "upset" was Congo beating the Knights. But if you scouted Congo this season, you would know that they are a well built team and they know what they are doing, so it's really not that surprising either that they pulled it off.

Only upset was Congo? Are you on crack? Yes, Cameroon was a very good team. I've mentioned that fact several times in this forum, and yes they did go 7-1, but who was the 1 against? Your answer...BOTSWANA 42-10.

I thought Cape would win, but not surprised by the Monkeez winning AT ALL. The Dream always have a shot if that running game gets going, but I saw now way that Congo or Outlaws were gonna win...then along came the sim, lol.

Originally posted by fbfan18
Total Absurdity.....hmmmm......ponderous man, really ponderous......

Has no bearing that on the way to this playoff run, we went through Cape Town, Spider Monkeys, Zombies, Mogadishu, and Congo, who last time I checked were all pretty darn good teams....and came away with W's.

I want to congratulate Congo on their quality victory, as I know....these guys are Good.



I totally agree. We went through Cape Town, Spider Monkeys, Mogadishu, Congo, AND Cameroon, who last time I checked were all pretty darn good team...and came away with W's.

Originally posted by majech
Originally posted by evesong

Originally posted by Earth Wan


I'll have to say that the 4 best teams of the Lion Conference lost (even though cape town was 5 seed they were far and away better than the spider monkees). Total absurdity.

This is probably the most balanced/competitive conference in GLB. Other than the bottom two teams, every team is competitive to a degree. No single team has dominated throughout this season. There are some teams that boosted early and got off to a great start (and earning higher seeds along the way), but that by no means makes them the top team in the conference. Both Outlaws and us were 7-1 in the second half of the season. Spider Monkeys did beat Cape Town earlier this season, so these victories should not come as a shocker to everyone. The only "upset" was Congo beating the Knights. But if you scouted Congo this season, you would know that they are a well built team and they know what they are doing, so it's really not that surprising either that they pulled it off.

Only upset was Congo? Are you on crack? Yes, Cameroon was a very good team. I've mentioned that fact several times in this forum, and yes they did go 7-1, but who was the 1 against? Your answer...BOTSWANA 42-10.

I thought Cape would win, but not surprised by the Monkeez winning AT ALL. The Dream always have a shot if that running game gets going, but I saw now way that Congo or Outlaws were gonna win...then along came the sim, lol.

I guess I phrased it wrong. Congo was the only "upset" that was a bit shocking.

Your victory over Cameroon was in week 10, and the game was closer than the score indicated. You were able to shut down their running game the first time, but they did have success passing the ball on you, and that's what they did the 2nd game, passing the ball all over the place. Teams that lost in the first game usually have an edge the second time around, because they "tend" to know what to work on and modify their plans accordingly. We beat Ridgebacks by 28 the first time, but this time barely hang on to win in OT. You guys would probably beat Cameroon 5 or 6 time out of 10 games, but I'm not "shocked" that they beat you.

Most of the remaining teams are really close, the favorites would probably have something like 55% chance of winning. Teams can be "favored", but really all four teams have probably about the same chance of winning it all. It will come down to game planning and a bit of sim luck.

Originally posted by evesong


I guess I phrased it wrong. Congo was the only "upset" that was a bit shocking.

Your victory over Cameroon was in week 10, and the game was closer than the score indicated. You were able to shut down their running game the first time, but they did have success passing the ball on you, and that's what they did the 2nd game, passing the ball all over the place. Teams that lost in the first game usually have an edge the second time around, because they "tend" to know what to work on and modify their plans accordingly. We beat Ridgebacks by 28 the first time, but this time barely hang on to win in OT. You guys would probably beat Cameroon 5 or 6 time out of 10 games, but I'm not "shocked" that they beat you.


Actually I don't think that game was closer than it appeared. Yes we did score 2 defensive TD's, but that would have made the score 28-10. And yes they did pass for a lot of yards, but passing yardage and wins are not very well correlated in football. Losing teams will pass for more yardage than the winning team quite often. I've seen MANY games in the NFL where a team will get their butts handed to them, but pass for over 500 yards. I believe Cam has the highest level QB in the conference and they have excellent WR's. Those guys are not gonna be totally shut down, but they can be contained, which is what we did BOTH times Cam and Bots met.

I do agree that the losing team has an edge in the 2nd game, but we changed up our game plan to adjust for that. We actually caused Cameroon to miss on their defensive game plan because of that.

Originally posted by majech

passing yardage and wins are not very well correlated in football

Have you ever gone to footballoutsiders.com? They would beg to differ. Not that it really matters here, because this is a video game, but according to football outsiders (basically a football version of stat geek sabermetricians), the biggest correlation to winning in the NFL is passing effectively and stopping the pass effectively.

Now, you may have been talking NCAA or high school and then I would probably agree with your statement.

I'm just posting this for argument's sake I guess... I don't have any opinion on your actual argument, so I guess I'm not really adding much after all

Originally posted by majech
We actually caused Cameroon to miss on their defensive game plan because of that.

Triple reverse Psychology

Originally posted by MattyP
Originally posted by majech


passing yardage and wins are not very well correlated in football

Have you ever gone to footballoutsiders.com? They would beg to differ. Not that it really matters here, because this is a video game, but according to football outsiders (basically a football version of stat geek sabermetricians), the biggest correlation to winning in the NFL is passing effectively and stopping the pass effectively.

Now, you may have been talking NCAA or high school and then I would probably agree with your statement.

I'm just posting this for argument's sake I guess... I don't have any opinion on your actual argument, so I guess I'm not really adding much after all

From watching football, I'd TOTALLY disagree with that. Now, in the regular season passing games will get you a lot of wins, but those team historically fail in the post season. We have to go all the way back to the last Super Bowl. The Pats were 18-0 and had an "unstoppable" passing game, the Giants has the better run game and defense and look who won. The Oilers back in the day were a juggernaut passing the ball with the run-n-shoot offense and made the playoffs a LOT, but had no big success. The Bills were a phenominal passing team with the K-Gun, went 0-4 in SB to defense/running game teams. Look at ST Louis a few years back, that was possible the greatest offense ever assembled and they did win a SB, but only by 1 foot and got beat in another by the running game/defense minded Pats. I could go on and on with NFL examples and not even get to the infinite number of college examples.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't have to pass effectively. To me running is quantitative and pass is qualitative meaning that in the passing game it is not all that important how much you pass, it matters if that passing is effective. (12-17 for 120 yard 1 or 2 TD's and 0 int's is and extremely effective passing game). With running you need to run a lot, even if it is not all that successful, you still keep the defense honest, wear the defense down, and establish and offensive consistency.

Originally posted by majech
Originally posted by MattyP

Originally posted by majech



passing yardage and wins are not very well correlated in football

Have you ever gone to footballoutsiders.com? They would beg to differ. Not that it really matters here, because this is a video game, but according to football outsiders (basically a football version of stat geek sabermetricians), the biggest correlation to winning in the NFL is passing effectively and stopping the pass effectively.

Now, you may have been talking NCAA or high school and then I would probably agree with your statement.

I'm just posting this for argument's sake I guess... I don't have any opinion on your actual argument, so I guess I'm not really adding much after all

From watching football, I'd TOTALLY disagree with that. Now, in the regular season passing games will get you a lot of wins, but those team historically fail in the post season. We have to go all the way back to the last Super Bowl. The Pats were 18-0 and had an "unstoppable" passing game, the Giants has the better run game and defense and look who won. The Oilers back in the day were a juggernaut passing the ball with the run-n-shoot offense and made the playoffs a LOT, but had no big success. The Bills were a phenominal passing team with the K-Gun, went 0-4 in SB to defense/running game teams. Look at ST Louis a few years back, that was possible the greatest offense ever assembled and they did win a SB, but only by 1 foot and got beat in another by the running game/defense minded Pats. I could go on and on with NFL examples and not even get to the infinite number of college examples.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't have to pass effectively. To me running is quantitative and pass is qualitative meaning that in the passing game it is not all that important how much you pass, it matters if that passing is effective. (12-17 for 120 yard 1 or 2 TD's and 0 int's is and extremely effective passing game). With running you need to run a lot, even if it is not all that successful, you still keep the defense honest, wear the defense down, and establish and offensive consistency.

Dude, you just conceded my point... We're talking about correlation between wins and passing here.

EDIT: Also, it is yards/attempt, not total yards so in that part you are correct. AND this is concerning modern NFL, like last ten years or so. I'm trying to find the article now but I can't. Ah well.

OK... so I was sort of wrong to argue your point "passing yardage and wins are not very well correlated in football" ... I misread it. My apologies. Total passing yards is not really correlated to winning. It is passing efficiency that is the biggest correlation to winning. See below articles:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-2.html
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=889

Interestingly, the idea that you need to run to "wear a defense down" appears to be false. However, there is a big correlation between 4th quarter rushing attempts and winning. See: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2003/07/14/ramblings/stat-analysis/3/

Now I'm not saying that you don't need to run the ball effectively to win, just that you can start to think a little differently about the game.

The reason that passing yardage isnt strongly correlated to winning in the NFL, is that the lsoing team is often forced to pass only, thus stock piling the passing yardage. See the Detroit lions for the last couple of years. As far as run goes, it's not that it wears a defense down (which it does btw), but it helps you control the clock and win the Time of posession battle. In todays NFL, 95% of the fans, truly believe that if you have a QB and a couple of good receivers, you will win alot of ball games. Many believe that it is impossible to win with running game and defense alone. As a Bears fan, I don't think you need Payton manning or Tom Brady lining up behind the center to have a chance to win it all. But then again, what the hell do I know about passing game. lol

Originally posted by MattyP
OK... so I was sort of wrong to argue your point "passing yardage and wins are not very well correlated in football" ... I misread it. My apologies. Total passing yards is not really correlated to winning. It is passing efficiency that is the biggest correlation to winning. See below articles:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-2.html
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=889

Interestingly, the idea that you need to run to "wear a defense down" appears to be false. However, there is a big correlation between 4th quarter rushing attempts and winning. See: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2003/07/14/ramblings/stat-analysis/3/

Now I'm not saying that you don't need to run the ball effectively to win, just that you can start to think a little differently about the game.

Real football... my specialty. Let's discuss the logic of this.

From the bottom up:

Of course 4th quarter rushing yards corelates to winning. If you have the lead, you'll run out the clock.

Also, of course passing efficiency relates to winning. As far as attempt/int goes, one turnover is probably as devastating, if not more, than getting a game broken in tennis. You only get x chances on offense to win the game, and if you lose one of them and give the other team good field position, the odds of you winning are much less.

You have 3 chances, realistically, to get a first down (starting at 1st down). If you throw on first down and it's incomplete, you have to average 5 ypp (realistically just slightly over that usually) to get a first down. It's the same in baseball as having your leadoff man not make it to first. It takes away a lot of the playbook. Keeping with baseball, if you have a guy on 2nd and 0 out, you can sac bunt then sac fly, relatively routine plays in the mlb, and get a run in. With a man out, you have to get someone to third before you can think about sacrificing. Going back to football, this parallels in that if you run on first and have even like 2nd and 6, you only have to average 3 ypp. You can run a simple hitch route and pick up a first down there. You have all kinds of plays at your disposal since you don't have to take a high risk, high reward play. You still CAN, and that keeps you dangerous.

I know you're just providing stats but I mean it's all really logical and, when you think about it, passing efficiency / 4th quarter rushing = win... not a reach at all.

However, does that site argue against a run-first defense being less important than a pass-first defense? If you look, the Pittsburgh Steelers have been near the top in the league in rush stopping the past few years, and they have also been near the top in total defense (#2/#1 in '07 iirc). I would think making a team have to throw would be a better objective than allowing the run. Look at teams like Denver... when Denver failed to stop the run in '07, that's when EVERYTHING fell apart... even with the league's best CB tandem (or top 2 with GB, but I'd still say, out of credentials, Denver had the best).

Edit: For these reasons, I find yards per attempt (rushing/passing) to be much more effective indicators of a good offense/defense. If I run 50 times and get 150 yards, that's a good day in total yards, but that's still (on average) 3 plays that won't net a first down. Shaun Alexander had 50 rushes for 200 yards against the 49ers in like '06 and people were saying "wow 200 yards" and stuff but that's not even a good game imo...

Originally posted by soapbox


However, does that site argue against a run-first defense being less important than a pass-first defense? If you look, the Pittsburgh Steelers have been near the top in the league in rush stopping the past few years, and they have also been near the top in total defense (#2/#1 in '07 iirc). I would think making a team have to throw would be a better objective than allowing the run. Look at teams like Denver... when Denver failed to stop the run in '07, that's when EVERYTHING fell apart... even with the league's best CB tandem (or top 2 with GB, but I'd still say, out of credentials, Denver had the best).


Yes it does. All you have to do is look at my favorite team (the Vikings) and you'll see why. They have been first in the league in stopping the run (yds and yds/attempt) for 2-3 years now and really no overall success. Granted, there is probably some misleading information in that stat because teams line up against the Vikes and basically don't really try to run. Why would you need to if you can pass so effectively? But the fact is, stopping the pass is just as important, if not more important.

I don't know if I completely agree with these sites because it's so hard to distill the game down to simple stats like that. But I do think they make a good case for discussion.