Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: Is this statistic meaningful?
-01-22-2002 #1bud4wiser Guest
Is this statistic meaningful?
Five teams played the Eagles twice this year. The Eagle beat three of the teams both times.
Arizona and Washington beat the Eagles the first time but both teams lost the second game.
The RAMS are playing the Eagles for the second time. Does this mean the Eagles have an edge, due to the "2nd meetings" record?
I can't find the "poll" button.....
No, this statistic is more interesting than meaningful. Washington had just came off a loss to the Cowboys, and Arizona was hurt. Both "revenge" wins came on the road but has Arizona ever sold out for anyone but the Cowboys? And then, 50% are Cowboys fans. Here is a stat for you: The Eagles lost to the Raiders by 10 at home, and the Whiners gave the Eagles their only road loss by holding that potent Eagles O to 3 points.
Eagles have been doing it with mirrors playing the NFC East. The Bears were not that good, just look how they won some of their games this year. Fluke carries you only so far. The Bears threw snake eyes against the Eagles.
-01-23-2002 #3bud4wiser Guest
Revenge or review?
Obviously, the eagles have not played consistently, hence their
I was wondering if the 2nd game wins signaled superior "game-planning " by the coaching staff.
After watching what happened with the Strahan-Tucker matchup in New York, I can't say I feel good about some the RAM's coaching staff's game-time play adjustments.....
-01-23-2002 #4Crumbwell Guest
Look at the Rams record...they played 4 teams twice this year...they won the second game on every occasion...
Of course, the Ugles aren't exactly the Saints, Falcons, or Panthers...
And the Rams aren't exactly the Cardinals or Redskins...
-01-23-2002 #5dpierce Guest
We can take all of the stats....
and toss 'em. Stats can say anything you want them to say, depending upon your point of view. The only stat that matters to me is the one on the scoreboard when the clock reads 0:00.
This one's gonna be a sloberknocker (in the words of Jim Ross).
I don't see the slobberknocker. I really don't think Philly is that good. I see another blowout this week by the Rams.
-01-23-2002 #7dpierce Guest
The Eagles are that good. The biggest criticism is the run D, which is better than "the numbers" say. Now I know that the last couple of teams don't have "MARSHALL MARSHALL MARSHALL", probably the league's most versatile offensive player, but I like the Iggs chances Sunday. Having talked up Faulk, though, I don't think he's the lynchpin of the Ram O. The key is putting pressure on Warner and forcing bad passes.
Look at their competition, there defensive and offensive stats, and you will see a different team. They played an extremely slow Bears team. Hey, if its close then I am wrong. I just don't see it.
-01-23-2002 #9RAMSWIN Guest
Not a big deal
TX, I'm definately with you. I saw this incredible Eagles team on many ocassions this season and they really aren't that good. If we lose we will have played the absolute crappiest game of the year. The Bears were the worst 13-3 team in NFL history and the Bucs were not a good team at all this year. Take two of the five turnovers away and we smoked them too. We played like crap and absolutely deserved to lose that game. There hasn't been a time this year that I watched the Eagles and said, "damn, that's a good football team." They just aren't.
I was much more worried about the Pack than I am about the Birds..
-01-24-2002 #10bud4wiser Guest
After further review-meaningless stat
After reviewing just how crappy the Eagles played against Chicago I have to admit that the Eagles just aren't Championship quality material.
If they play the Rams the same way -- no contest...
By RamWraith in forum RAM TALKReplies: 0Last Post: -09-02-2005, 07:27 AM
By ram3057 in forum RAM TALKReplies: 3Last Post: -08-27-2005, 09:14 PM