Stats ?????

R

romegajacket

Helluva Engineer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
2,102
If these stats for the Maryland game are correct, then I've never realized how deceiving stats could be. Looks like we should have won & been on the way to the bank with that game.

BTW, remember some of those games w/UGA that would have been wins if the stats were a factor? I brought this fact to the attention of a friend who is an avid "dawg", just to be reminded, in his words, "Stats are for losers".

http://ramblinwreck.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2007-2008/gt100607.html
 
We dominated Maryland in every phase of the game except the score. Twice as many first downs, twice as many rushing yards, 50 more yards passing, 140 more total offense. Half again as many plays, even on turnovers, and over 50% on 3rd down conversions.

The one stat they killed us on, ironically, is the one stat that Playboy this past month said had a higher correlation with Superbowl wins than any other: yards per pass attempt.

And ours was finally not bad - 9 yards per attempt is nothing to frown at. But their deep ball completions upped theirs to 15 yards per attempt, which is simply nasty.
 
Yeah, stats are for losers. They scored TD's, and we scored field goals (and missed 2 field goals).
 
beej67 said:
The one stat they killed us on, ironically, is the one stat that Playboy this past month said had a higher correlation with Superbowl wins than any other: yards per pass attempt.
Click to expand...

Wow, you actually do read the articles? :laugher:

Agree thought that stats are very deceiving. If you score quick, you dont get as many first downs, dont have the large time of possession, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top