If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
"...when Hibernian won the Scottish Cup final and that celebration, Sunshine on Leith? I don’t think there’s a better football celebration ever in the game.”
He had every right to go and not go through another rebuild. We got a good haul out of it and we have a hell of a roster built for long term success.
Staff got his chip, we got juice for the rebuild. Win win.
I agree with what you're saying. It was a win-win because he only had one more year left in him (hindsight) and we wouldn't have done anything with it. We effectively turned the clock back at QB several years and got picks so win for us along with obvious win for them. And yes of course he had the right. But he was supposed to be our savior. Our QB of destiny. He knows Lions history, at least he knows about Dutch Clark and why he couldn't wear his college number. So he knows the curse of Layne ended right when he was drafted and that he grew up on the same steet as Bobby Layne. He was taken #1 overall and the expectations for a QB are a championship.
Maybe it's an oversimplification but right now we could have a banged up Stafford minus Jamo and Gibbs. No Gibbs means no LaPorta either but no Jamo means no trading up and losing other picks. So basically it's fair to say we could imagine Stafford on this team without our two top picks that aren't even doing anything. There is a world where he could be winning with us and he threw it away. I guess I feel betrayed because he was my favorite player by far for so long. Now he's nothing to me.
"Yeah, we just... we don't want them to go. So that's our motivation."
Dan Campbell at Green Bay, January 8, 2023.
I have to say, I never felt great about the hot starts under Caldwell or the hot starts in the later years under Schwartz, but this one feels good. They’re doing it with strong line play on both sides of the ball.
I have to say, I never felt great about the hot starts under Caldwell or the hot starts in the later years under Schwartz, but this one feels good. They’re doing it with strong line play on both sides of the ball.
That and Campbell's teams have always finished stronger than they started.
"Yeah, we just... we don't want them to go. So that's our motivation."
Dan Campbell at Green Bay, January 8, 2023.
And we had 2.5 samples of Fatty Matty Patty. Should we have kept it going with him?
All I'm saying is that while saying "always finished stronger than they started" is technically true, it would have any statistician grimacing in pain.
All I'm saying is that while saying "always finished stronger than they started" is technically true, it would have any statistician grimacing in pain.
Gonna have to give a very hard pass on that take.
0-11-1, then 3-3
1-6, then 8-2
No statistician on earth will think that the win probability has remained the same from start to finish. And what would you call the win chance? 50/50 if we agree to ignore the tie? Ok, let's use the binomial formula to determine the probability of these outcomes (at least I would, because I think the win probability changed, but I can use a coin flip calculator until you disagree with 50/50).
Chances of 0-11 are 1 ÷ 2¹¹ ≈ 0.0005 = 0.05%
Chances of 3-3 are 31.25%
Chances of 1-6 are 9.375%
Chances of 8-2 are 10.938%
These outcomes are not likely. Only 3-3 ended up as the most likely outcome if we assume 50% win rate. I think the Lions went from 25% to 50% in 2021 and then from 50% to 75% in 2022.
I understand that any particular record has a small chance of occurrence but these outcomes are not consistent with any kind of expectation that win rate remains constant.
"Yeah, we just... we don't want them to go. So that's our motivation."
Dan Campbell at Green Bay, January 8, 2023.
No statistician on earth will think that the win probability has remained the same from start to finish. And what would you call the win chance? 50/50 if we agree to ignore the tie? Ok, let's use the binomial formula to determine the probability of these outcomes (at least I would, because I think the win probability changed, but I can use a coin flip calculator until you disagree with 50/50).
Chances of 0-11 are 1 ÷ 2¹¹ ≈ 0.0005 = 0.05%
Chances of 3-3 are 31.25%
Chances of 1-6 are 9.375%
Chances of 8-2 are 10.938%
These outcomes are not likely. Only 3-3 ended up as the most likely outcome if we assume 50% win rate. I think the Lions went from 25% to 50% in 2021 and then from 50% to 75% in 2022.
I understand that any particular record has a small chance of occurrence but these outcomes are not consistent with any kind of expectation that win rate remains constant.
What they would tell you is that a sample size of two seasons wouldn't be NEARLY enough data to support your hypothesis conclusively. That's all.
What does Matt Patricia have to do with any of this?
All that I said was that two seasons is an awfully small sample size to make a grand statement like Campbell's teams always finish stronger than they start.
If you had claimed Matt Patricia's teams always finish with 6 or less wins, that would also be true, also would be an awfully small sample size, and not be something too many people outside of maybe Matt Millen and Ol' Willie Ford would want to test with scientific rigor.
Comment