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

[Buehler445]

Any of you dumb ****s want to continue this argument now?

Chiefs owned TOP 37:51 to 22.09.

It's about scores and stops, mother****ers.

[kcclone]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Any of you dumb ****s want to continue this argument now?

Chiefs owned TOP 37:51 to 22.09.

It's about scores and stops, mother****ers.

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.

[BWillie]

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.

That is because when running was a more integral part of the game, it mattered more.

Time of possession is one of the most overrated statistics there is. We had one of the best offenses of ALL TIME last year and were 27th in time of possession. It's about efficiency. When you score quickly with big strikes, you won't have a ton of time of possession.

Are you saying scoring quickly & efficiently is bad?

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by BWillie

That is because when running was a more integral part of the game, it mattered more.

Time of possession is one of the most overrated statistics there is. We had one of the best offenses of ALL TIME last year and were 27th in time of possession. It's about efficiency. When you score quickly with big strikes, you won't have a ton of time of possession.

Are you saying scoring quickly & efficiently is bad?

My point was TOP can be correlated to winning, but is not causal.

He says TOP is correlated to winning, but is not causal.

He also says I'm wrong.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Any of you dumb ****s want to continue this argument now?

Chiefs owned TOP 37:51 to 22.09.

It's about scores and stops, mother****ers.

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.

[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!

[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.