New York Jets Football > ...And The Home Of The Jets
Quarterly Breakdown of Rex Ryan's tenure
Badger:
Q1Q2Q3Q420093-11-32-23-120103-13-13-12-220112-23-12-21-320122-21-32-21-320132-22-21-33-1Total Pct.600.500.500.500
I wanted to lay this out when I saw the discussion that was starting in the Growing up Geno thread.
The last Q of the season has been a problem for the last two years, but as Puck mentioned, that may have been the result of an older roster not being able to keep up an adequate level of play late in the season. But if for whatever reason we have a lousy last Q this year, it'll look like a pretty bad trend and would definitely factor into whether Rex gets to stay or not.
Also noticed that we've never had a 4-0 or 0-4 Q. We've never lost more than 3 in a row under Rex, and while we did have a 5 game and a 4 game win streak in 2010 they just didn't fit neatly into a Q.
624:
I'm willing to write last year's last quarter off because of all the bullshit but 2011 sucked.
MexJetinBcn:
I don't think those stats on their own represent a trend of any kind, for various reasons.
- First of all, they don't take into account strength of schedule, which definitely affects the chances of a team winning a game.
- Second, dividing it by quarters is a bit arbitrary, why not fifths or thirds? I understand that it's easier that way, but we might different results by dividing the schedule on a different way.
- Third, the sample size is still too small for each quarter. Imagine we would have done this on the first two years we could have said, "the Jets are decent finishers!". Or just the last two, "the team was too veteran and crumbled in the end (as you said)". It's just too arbitrary.
- Fourth, they don't take into account injuries or the strengh of the Jets' roster for any given year.
It's a nice effort of analysing but I don't think it means much more than a source of good talking points.
hawk:
--- Quote from: MexJetinBcn on November 06, 2013, 10:05:39 AM ---I don't think those stats on their own represent a trend of any kind, for various reasons.
- First of all, they don't take into account strength of schedule, which definitely affects the chances of a team winning a game.
- Second, dividing it by quarters is a bit arbitrary, why not fifths or thirds? I understand that it's easier that way, but we might different results by dividing the schedule on a different way.
- Third, the sample size is still too small for each quarter. Imagine we would have done this on the first two years we could have said, "the Jets are decent finishers!". Or just the last two, "the team was too veteran and crumbled in the end (as you said)". It's just too arbitrary.
- Fourth, they don't take into account injuries or the strengh of the Jets' roster for any given year.
It's a nice effort of analysing but I don't think it means much more than a source of good talking points.
--- End quote ---
Can't really divide a 16 game season into 3rd's or 5th's. It's really all moot because the team is not nearly the same as it was the past 4 seasons. However, Rex is the only common denominator.
Badger:
--- Quote from: MexJetinBcn on November 06, 2013, 10:05:39 AM ---I don't think those stats on their own represent a trend of any kind, for various reasons.
- First of all, they don't take into account strength of schedule, which definitely affects the chances of a team winning a game.
- Second, dividing it by quarters is a bit arbitrary, why not fifths or thirds? I understand that it's easier that way, but we might different results by dividing the schedule on a different way.
- Third, the sample size is still too small for each quarter. Imagine we would have done this on the first two years we could have said, "the Jets are decent finishers!". Or just the last two, "the team was too veteran and crumbled in the end (as you said)". It's just too arbitrary.
- Fourth, they don't take into account injuries or the strengh of the Jets' roster for any given year.
It's a nice effort of analysing but I don't think it means much more than a source of good talking points.
--- End quote ---
Talking points is all I'm going for here. I want to see what conclusions anyone might draw from it or even disputing that any conclusion can be drawn from it.
I think 4+ years is a decent sample size. More would be better but it's not too small.
Edit: Breaking it down by quarter isn't arbitrary either. Many coaches look at their season that way. I believe Marvin Lewis spoke about it on Hard Knocks this year, someone correct me if I'm misremembering.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version