Divisional opponents inspire hate. And mockery. So let round two of the Charger Limericks begin!
Here are five that I created. Please feel free to make up your own. And Chargers' fans, please participate if you have the inclination (or the intelligence). With the beach and the surfing, one wonders if Chargers' fans can count syllables.
At the end of the season, I'll do a post with the top 10 limericks of the season for everyone to vote on.
I can no longer sit back and allow a stats infiltration, a stats indoctrination, a stats subversion, and the international stats conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. --General Jack D. Ripper
Last week another disaster movie, 2012, opened across the USA. This coincided with Week 10 of the NFL season. We were reminded of three important things:
The Denver Broncos have thus far avoided complete catastrophe, sitting at 6-3. But another loss, and you should probably head to the basement with all of your canned goods, bottled water, and flashlight batteries.
Note: This post is a joint collaboration between Douglas Lee and myself. You can't gather this much data in such a short amount of time by yourself. So hats off to the guy that not only brings us "Horse Tracks" everyday, but gave me the very idea for this post.
Now that the Broncos, Captain McDaniels, and First Mate Orton are sailing through some rough seas (a 2-game losing streak), you knew it was bound to happen.
This shouldn't surprise you. Perhaps you should be more surprised it took so long, given the unexpected sinking of the 2008 season, in which the Broncos drowned themselves after holding a 3-game lead through 14 weeks.
"So including last night that's three Stats That Don't Lie incidents that didn't kill you. Pain, or damage don't end the world, or despair, or beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man...and give some back."
Week 9 of the NFL. Every team has now played half of its schedule. We are beginning to see which teams are looking to give out the beatings on a regular basis (New Orleans), which teams are looking to take the beatings on a regular basis (Detroit), and which teams are just looking for Tim Tebow.
The Denver Broncos? They took another punch to the face this week, but with a 6-2 record, let's just say, I wouldn't want to find myself in a back alley with Brian Dawkins.
Welcome once again to The Stats That Don't Lie for Week 9. These are the adamantium claws of stats. Your statistical Weapon X. In short, these are the stats that are enough to piss off a Wolverine. They are: Turnovers, Field Position, Time of Possession, and 3rd-Down Efficiency.
If you were inside the head of Josh McDaniels, you might be tempted to tell everyone how smart you really are.
Then again, if you were Josh McDaniels, you'd be smart enough to shut up and keep your knowledge to yourself. Al Davis has spies everywhere (look behind your bushes right now if you think I'm lying), so there's really no need to give up trade secrets.
During the bye week, McDaniels waived Punter Brett Kern and replaced him with (let's just say it) journeyman punter Mitch "Where's the Beef?" Berger. In a seemingly puzzling move, Denver's starting punter was on the street. We can all sleep well, however, knowing Kern was picked up by Tennessee in a few days. The bad news for Kern is that he's not going to the playoffs this year. The good news? He'll get plenty of practice kicking with Vince Young under center.
"Sure, The Stats That Don't Lie could have stayed in the past. They could have even been king. But in their own way, they ARE king. Hail to the king, baby."
With the bye, it gave me ample opportunity to watch every play of the San Diego/ Denver game again. Usually I do this Spotlight post on Saturday Nights/Sunday Mornings so that people will have something to read before the game. I decided to continue this trend, even though two weeks have passed since this game, and much of what I saw when I looked at the game again has been mentioned by others. So I certainly don't want to take any originally credit for all of these points.
This week, I had intended to look atand . However, after another week of adjustments by by Mike Nolan, I simply couldn't resist looking at what he was doing. Everyone in the MSM continues to talk about Denver's adjustments in the second half, but what exactly did they do so differently from the first half? Did the players just play harder? Did Phil Rivers eat a bad hot dog at halftime? Did Dumervil find a phone booth and put on a cape?
(Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Mike Nolan)
Al Davis once said, "Don't worry about mistakes. Just win."
The problem with this statement is, that in the NFL, when you make a mistake, you rarely win.
In fact, you lose. A lot.
And the more mistakes you make, the more likely it is that you are going to receive a first-class, gold-plated, butt whoopin' of the sort that is reserved for pickpockets and teams quarterbacked by JaMarcus Russell.
"The Stats That Don't Lie are gonna eat lightning and crap thunder!"
Week 7 brought a well deserved break for the(God even rested on the 7th day), no less than 6 bona fide blowouts (an average night for a Raider at a singles bar), and 3 more interceptions from new ' mascot (2 more and he can tie Orton's season total from 2008 in less than half the games).
In other words, a decent weekend.
Don't make the same mistake twice.
You've heard this nugget of wisdom a hundred times.
In the NFL, it's literally true. For if you turn the ball over twice, your chances of winning go way down. Not quite as far as the Raiders' playoff chances in November, but very far nonetheless.
We know that turnovers are the single biggest reason for winning and losing in the NFL. It's estimated that the team that wins the turnover battle in an individual game ends up winning the game about 80% of the time.
But how do the number of turnovers a team commits in a game affect winning? Do teams that commit 0 turnovers win more often than teams that commit 1? Or how about 1 turnover versus 2 turnovers? Does it even matter when we compare 4 turnovers to 5 turnovers?