can we please stop talking about time of possession? Please?

[Buehler445]

Everyone is talking about time of possession. That is mind bogglingly stupid. Winning is about offensive and defensive efficiency. Scores and stops. It has nothing at all to do with time. If Mahomes scores in one play every possession that’s really efficient but won’t take up any time. Moreover if we take a 12 minute drive and fumble at the 2, that isn’t going to win any games but by god we’ll win the time of possession.

****ing pussies like Squirmin Herman Mother****ing Sack of **** Edwards talk about time of possession. Winners talk about scores and stops.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by kcclone

Only people who have never played football think TOP doesn't matter. Ask any coach in the sport.

It's not the number in and of itself that matters. But losing TOP consistently, means you don't control the tempo of the game. It indicates you can't run the ball or stop the other team.

Period

*We also dominated TOP against the Vikings and beat them with our 3rd string QB so you conveniently left that out.

Then why the **** did we lose, stupid?

Again, it's correlated to winning, but not causal. We won TOP and lost the game. TOP does not equate to winning.

You don't win games because you win TOP, you win because of scores and stops. Those things can also win you TOP, but not necessarily. Scores and stops win games, not TOP.

Originally Posted by lcarus

The fact that we won TOP so badly is why it's so surprising we lost that game. We had no business losing that game. The fumble that gave them a TD was the difference in the game. Without that they have no shot.

Again, it's correlated to winning, but just strictly winning TOP won't necessarily win you the game.

Again, correlation/causation. Scores and stops win games.

[kcclone]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Then why the **** did we lose, stupid?

Again, it's correlated to winning, but not causal. We won TOP and lost the game. TOP does not equate to winning.




Again, it's correlated to winning, but just strictly winning TOP won't necessarily win you the game.

Again, correlation/causation.

No one is saying that it's causal? Who is?

It's indicative of a lot of factors that determine whether you win or lose. Much of it has to do with style of play.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by kcclone

No one is saying it's causal? Who is?

It's indicative of a lot of factors that determine whether you win or lose. Much of it has to do with style of play.

A month ago everyone was after Houston kept the ball all goddamned game. Read the goddamned thread.

EDIT: In fact, Reid did. I had forgotten, but the reason I made the thread is Reid said in his presser, "TOP is on me" as if TOP is something that actually drives winning. ****ing insane. I get that coaches say WTF ever to shut reporters up and it means nothing, but come the **** on.

[kcclone]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

A month ago everyone was after Houston kept the ball all goddamned game. Read the goddamned thread.

I did. You're saying "Don't talk about it", which is totally different than "it's not causal".

Apparently we're on the same page, because it means a hell of a lot in football!

[Megatron96]

Chiefs scored on 8 out of 11 possessions.

Titans scored on 4 out of 10 possessions.

It's not just about stops and scores, either, obviously.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by kcclone

I did. You're saying "Don't talk about it", which is totally different than "it's not causal".

Apparently we're on the same page, because it means a hell of a lot in football!

Go back and read the board, there were a ton of goddamned threads about it. **** that. Get a goddamned stop, and TOP will take care of itself, but we shouldn't set out to win TOP. We should set out to score and get stops.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Chiefs scored on 8 out of 11 possessions.

Titans scored on 4 out of 10 possessions.

It's not just about stops and scores, either, obviously.

How did they only score 4 times and end up with 35 points?

[lcarus]

It's not the only factor in winning or losing. It's just a decent indicator. Typically the teams that win TOP get scores and get stops. The top 4 teams currently in average TOP per game are 1. San Francisco 2. Baltimore 3. New England 4. New Orleans. There are other factors too. Obviously turnovers is a big one. Scoring and stopping the other team from scoring is all that really matters in the end, yes

[kcclone]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Go back and read the board, there were a ton of goddamned threads about it. **** that. Get a goddamned stop, and TOP will take care of itself, but we shouldn't set out to win TOP. We should set out to score and get stops.

I did read the thread a couple weeks back. I literally do not remember one person who argued that it's causality which makes TOP important.

Here's another example since you don't seem very bright:

Turnover differential is highly correlated with W/L. But you can still win games were you're -2 TO's. And you can lose games where you're +1. That seems to be the basis of your argument and why you resurrected the thread.

That doesn't make turnover differential a meaningless stat.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

How did they only score 4 times and end up with 35 points?

Uh, Damien fumbled? Scoop and score? Ring any bells?

[CatfishBob2]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Chiefs scored on 8 out of 11 possessions.

Titans scored on 4 out of 10 possessions.

It's not just about stops and scores, either, obviously.

This team never ceases to amaze in the games we lose. Smdh

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by lcarus

It's not the only factor in winning or losing. It's just a decent indicator. Typically the teams that win TOP get scores and get stops. The top 4 teams currently in average TOP per game are 1. San Francisco 2. Baltimore 3. New England 4. New Orleans. There are other factors too. Obviously turnovers is a big one. Scoring and stopping the other team from scoring is all that really matters in the end, yes

Well no ****ing shit, Sherlock. Accordingly, it is correlated to winning, not causal.

But mother****ers around here were squealing like ****ing pigs about losing TOP in the Houston game, so guess what, we won TOP against Tennessee and still lost.

All I'm saying it is that it's reeruned to look at TOP and say TOP is why a team lost. **** that, it's about getting scrores and making stops. TOP is like completion percentage. Sure, the higher it is the better but it really doesn't truly affect winning.

For the billionth time, as it was against Houston, it's correlated. But correlation does not equal causation.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by kcclone

I did read the thread a couple weeks back. I literally do not remember one person who argued that it's causality which makes TOP important.

Here's another example since you don't seem very bright:

Turnover differential is highly correlated with W/L. But you can still win games were you're -2 TO's. And you can lose games where you're +1. That seems to be the basis of your argument and why you resurrected the thread.

That doesn't make turnover differential a meaningless stat.

There were people arguing it in this thread.

I didn't say it was ****ing meaningless. I only said its correlated to winning, which it is, not causal to winning, which it's not, obviously, by yesterday's performance.

And I was the only one saying it.

And now you're going to sit here and tell me that:

1. It's correlated to winning
2. It's not causal to winning
3. I'm still wrong, somehow.

[kcclone]

1. SF
2. Baltimore
3. New England
4. New Orleans
5. Philly
6. Tampa Bay
7. Houston
8. Jacksonville
9. Indy
10. Green Bay
11. Seattle
12. Minnesota
13. Chargers
14. Buffalo
15. Oakland
16. Detroit
17. Cleveland
18. Atlanta
19. Dallas
20. Tennessee
21. Pitt
22. KC
23. Carolina
24. Denver
25. Giants
26. Rams
27. Cinci
28. Chicago
29. Jets
30. Miami
31. Arizona
32. Washington


You notice any trends in there dummy?

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Uh, Damien fumbled? Scoop and score? Ring any bells?

That's a ****ing score, dude.

What wins these games is scores and stops. They did it better than us even though we won TOP, yet after Houston everyone was screaming WE SCORE TOO FAST CANNOT LOSE TOP.

It was horseshit then and it's horseshit now.

Coaches need to focus on the plays that prevent us from getting stops and **** up scores.

Not ****ing time of possession.