Originally Posted by saphojunkie (Post 9847647)

Read his sig. It's cherry picking. When an opponent scores more than 24 points, Alex Loses! AMIRITE?

Well, actually, that statistic means nothing if Alex Smith's team ALSO scored more than 24 points. If his team loses 48-45, then it would fall under Clay's "Statistical analysis" (see: bullshit), because Smith's team technically lost while the opponent scored over 24 points. But so did his team. So, if the defense had held the opponent to 24 points, he would have won, and Clay's point would be meaningless. Granted, this isn't true for all of these losses or even a majority, but even one contrary example shows the fallacy in relying on statistical propaganda, which is what the sig is.

Still, it's an arbitrary benchmark. He's using statistics to prove points he already believes. That's cherry picking. He would have you believe that the only thing you have to do is to beat Smith is score 24 points, because clearly he was incapable of leading his team to more than four scores in a game. Ever.

They make for great discussion, but it's annoying as **** to have to go and do the research just to disprove a bullshit theory that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I ****ing love the gifs though. They are far superior to statistics for making an argument.

Originally Posted by aturnis (Post 9847669)

I disagree with this. I think it is absolutely relevant. It shows that if his defense isn't capable of beating the other team, you can't really on him to beat them. Pretty simple shit.

Originally Posted by saphojunkie (Post 9847678)

You might be right, but you can't infer that from that statistic.

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy (Post 9847656)

People still read GoChiefs football opinions?

Originally Posted by aturnis (Post 9847669)

I disagree with this. I think it is absolutely relevant. It shows that if his defense isn't capable of beating the other team, you can't really on him to beat them. Pretty simple shit.

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis (Post 9848876)

Fuggin' Trent Green. If it weren't for him we could of beat the Colts in the playoffs. Pretty simple shit.

Originally Posted by aturnis (Post 9847669)

I disagree with this. I think it is absolutely relevant. It shows that if his defense isn't capable of beating the other team, you can't really on him to beat them. Pretty simple shit.

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis (Post 9848876)

Fuggin' Trent Green. If it weren't for him we could of beat the Colts in the playoffs. Pretty simple shit.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 9849283)

I've only found two instances of those 27 losses where the offense scored more than 24 points.

In both cases, they scored 27 points.

In those two games, he's a combined 52/85 for 586 yards, 3 TDs and 3 INTs.

Frank Gore had 170 yards from scrimmage in one game, and 158 YFS in the other - which was a game they lost because Smith threw a pick-6 with 3 minutes left in the game to put SF down 14 points.

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 9849183)

So if the defense gives up 38 and Alex scores 35 they lost because of Alex Smith?

Yea its not that simple and you are just looking at it one sided.