(
Ed. note: The Ombudsdouche, are out-house critic, is in rare form this week, insulting not only our publisher and our methods, but the entire crew of CHFF contributors. He also wants you to
take his CHFF IQ test here.)
By Mark Wald
Cold, Hard Football Facts Ombudsdouche
Tired of the Cold, Hard Football Facts back-fitting their mythology so they appear more brilliant than they are?
Take the Colts-Dolphins matchup from Week 2, for example. The Dolphins held the ball over 45 minutes and outrushed the Colts 239 to 61 but still lost the game. CHFF
called it a "win" for the Cold, Hard Football Facts and a loss for conventional wisdom." They said Indy's victory is evidence that controlling the clock and winning the battle on the ground are "factless canards that have no real correlation to victory".
Not a chance.
I'm not sure who is more clueless: Dolphins coach Tony Sporano or Cold, Hard Football Facts. After the game the exasperated Sporano whined "this is the exact formula to beat that team".
Someone should whisper into Sporano's ear that the winning formula involves putting the ball in the end zone and preventing the other team from doing the same, doesn't matter how you do it.
As for CHFF, they want you to believe teams that pass more efficiently than their opponent win even if their opponent wins the rushing and time of possession battle. The problem with that theory is it's not true.
Since the beginning of 2008 through 2009 week 3, teams with more rush attempts, more rush yards, and greater TOP than their opponent win more than half the time even when their opponent passes more efficiently.
This isn't rocket science, folks. The Dolphins lost the game because they kicked more field goals than scored touchdowns and forgot to play defense. The Dolphins lost a game that most teams win.
They didn't lose the game because the Colts passed more effectively, though. Miami could have crushed the Colts in the passing battle and still lost. Want evidence? Take the two games the Colts played against the Chargers last year.
Colts vs. Chargers – Week 12 2008 Season
Score: Colts 23-20
Colts passing: 32-44-255, 2 TD, 1 INT, 5.79 YPA, 92.52 rating
Chargers passing: 24-31-288, 2 TD, 0 INT, 9.29 YPA, 126.81 rating
Colts vs. Chargers – Wildcard Playoffs 2008 Season
Score: Chargers 23-17
Colts passing: 25-42-310, 1 TD, 0 INT, 7.38 YPA, 90.38 rating
Chargers passing: 20-36-217, 0 TD, 1 INT, 6.03 YPA, 61.92 rating
In the Week 12 matchup Chargers QB Philip Rivers averaged a whopping 9.29 yards per attempt, threw no interceptions and finished with a passer rating of 126.81, but the Colts won the game.
In the playoff matchup the Colts dominated the passing statistics but it was the Chargers who won.
The insinuation Miami would have beat the Colts had they, not Indianapolis, dominated the passing game is nothing more than the opportunistic CHFF leveraging statistics after the fact in order to advance their own mythology. They deserve a blast of cold seltzer water in the face.
***
CHFF's Monday Morning Hangover has turned into a cliché-ridden, unimaginative, formulaic bore.
Not that it always was; in past years I looked forward to it. This year the First Response Team, a column I assume is meant to tide us over like a snickers bar until the major wrap-up arrives on Monday, is better.
I attribute it to the team contributor approach. Maybe it always was a team-built column, but it's really apparent this year. Goes something like this:
-
Assign game to one of your writers
-
Writer identifies (beforehand?) game angle related to one of CHFF's past stories
-
Writer ties game statistics to one of CHFF's pet quality stats
-
Writer throws a clever simile in there somewhere
-
Writer ends game summary with a super-obvious smart-alecky remark stating the obvious about how good or bad the team is
I don't know if the Chief Troll is on auto-pilot or just throwing a bone to some of his drinking buddies. Whatever, the team approach isn't working. Either nix the team approach, get people who copy you better (or less transparently), or find writers with a voice.
Part of the problem—we hear—is that all potential CHFF contributors are
required to pass this CHFF IQ test to determine if they have the smarts and the outlook necessary to qualify for consideration.
I've tried it. Trust me, this test separates the contenders from the pretenders.
