(02-09-2022, 06:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both.  Chargers were #8 in attendance per game this year (71,598).  Rams were #10 (70,240).

Bengals were 29th (60,325)

2021 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League - ESPN

Yeah, but that's comparing a metro area with around 19 million in SoCal to 2.25 million in greater Cincy.  So I'd sure hope California could pull in more fans to support two teams from an attendance standpoint. 

(02-09-2022, 05:51 PM)CoachGeorge Wrote: Not so fast.  (Football Outsider DVOA) they faced #1, #2, #3, #5, #5, #7 & #7 offensives in FB.  That’s a pretty steep schedule.

Conversely the Bengals faced the #32, #31, #29, #28, #28, #24, #22 & #20 defensives.

For good measure, the Rams defense finished #5 overall.  The Bengals offense finished #19. I doubt we “carve them up” as somebody predicted.

I don't understand these ratings you have. I don't have a subscription to Football Outsider DVOA, so I couldn't check the stats overall, but you have only listed 7 defenses that the Bengals have face, and only 5 offenses that the Rams have faced. 

To me it doesn't seem to mean much when you are only presenting selective rankings on the extreme ends. You seem to be skipping those defenses that are stout that the Bengals played and only list five teams that have good offenses that the Rams played. 

Wouldn't you agree that is kinda meaningless to present such selective stats?

It is impossible for the Bengals to average 70,000 fans in the stadium per game. Even if the entire city is rabid and foaming at the mouth with Bengals insanity, they still won't average 70,000 per game.

(02-09-2022, 04:48 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: I go to run one errand, come back, and all hell had broken loose.  The guy that makes up the lionshare of posts is already banned and I can only read his "work" as quotations in other posts.  When you miss an hour, you miss a lot.  

Same. I was clowning during lunch, took a break to check back in, and it had gone nuclear....and I missed it. Dammit!

(02-09-2022, 06:14 PM)Nepa Wrote: I don't understand these ratings you have. I don't have a subscription to Football Outsider DVOA, so I couldn't check the stats overall, but you have only listed 7 defenses that the Bengals have face, and only 5 offenses that the Rams have faced. 

To me it doesn't seem to mean much when you are only presenting selective rankings on the extreme ends. You seem to be skipping those defenses that are stout that the Bengals played and only list five teams that have good offenses that the Rams played. 

Wouldn't you agree that is kinda meaningless to present such selective stats?

No, I don’t think that presenting cherry picked stars is meaningless. I try to protect intellectual property when using a subscription service when posting to a message board.

The narrative on this thread was that the Rams defense has played nobody throughout their schedule. The played 7 games against top 7 offensives. To me, that is significant. You can look at their schedule on your own to determine who was a “gimme” game. Keep in mind we lost to the lowly Jets.

The Bengals have played 8 games against bottom tier defensives. The notion that LA hasn’t seen an offense this good is pretty obviously false.

(02-09-2022, 06:21 PM)Wyche Wrote: Same. I was clowning during lunch, took a break to check back in, and it had gone nuclear....and I missed it. Dammit!

When I was in 7th or 8th grade, I was out sick a day, and when I returned all I heard about was this fight that had taken place between two girls on my sick day.  It happened in the main hallway, and dozens stood around watching as the two girls pulled hair and threw haymakers at one another.  Anyone I talked to described it as epic.  There were still a few blood smears on the wall the next day.  Even years later people would talk about the fight with a glowing nostalgia the way that the cons talk about the departed Andy Dufresne toward the end of Shawshank.  I was constantly reminded how I missed it.  At least this was documented.

(02-09-2022, 05:51 PM)CoachGeorge Wrote: Not so fast.  (Football Outsider DVOA) they faced #1, #2, #3, #5, #5, #7 & #7 offensives in FB.  That’s a pretty steep schedule.

Conversely the Bengals faced the #32, #31, #29, #28, #28, #24, #22 & #20 defensives.

For good measure, the Rams defense finished #5 overall.  The Bengals offense finished #19. I doubt we “carve them up” as somebody predicted.

Quick note: the plural of offense is 'offsenses' not "offensives". Same thing with defense. It's 'defenses' not "defensives"

Glad I could help

(02-09-2022, 07:18 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Quick note: the plural of offense is 'offsenses' not "offensives". Same thing with defense. It's 'defenses' not "defensives"

Glad I could help

Since I am very well drunk at this time, I appreciate it. I don’t get drunk very often and my post count mysteriously rises in that time.

(02-09-2022, 06:55 PM)CoachGeorge Wrote: No, I don’t think that presenting cherry picked stars is meaningless.  I try to protect intellectual property when using a subscription service when posting to a message board.  

The narrative on this thread was that the Rams defense has played nobody throughout their schedule.  The played 7 games against top 7 offensives. To me, that is significant.  You can look at their schedule on your own to determine who was a “gimme” game.  Keep in mind we lost to the lowly Jets.

The Bengals have played 8 games against bottom tier defensives.  The notion that LA hasn’t seen an offense this good is pretty obviously false.

The Rams defense has allowed more ppg this year at home than the Bengals defense has allowed on the road. 

(02-09-2022, 06:55 PM)CoachGeorge Wrote: No, I don’t think that presenting cherry picked stars is meaningless.  I try to protect intellectual property when using a subscription service when posting to a message board.  

The narrative on this thread was that the Rams defense has played nobody throughout their schedule.  The played 7 games against top 7 offensives. To me, that is significant.  You can look at their schedule on your own to determine who was a “gimme” game.  Keep in mind we lost to the lowly Jets.

The Bengals have played 8 games against bottom tier defensives.  The notion that LA hasn’t seen an offense this good is pretty obviously false.

I'd be curious how Football Outside DVOA has the Bengals rated in the bottom half of the league in terms of offense (19th). In points during the regular season they were 7th and in yards they were 13th. Are they including postseason? It doesn't pass the smell test that the  Bengals are rated only 19th in the league in offense.

In terms of the assertion that the Bengals played bottom tier defenses, where did Football Outsider DVOA have the Titans and Raiders ranked in defense? How about Denver, Green Bay, and Chicago on defense? It seems to me that the Bengals have played some pretty tough defenses. Are there any teams the Bengals played better than the 5th ranking in defense that they gave the Rams?

DVOA is another synthetic stat, like PFF rating but somewhat less of a black box.

(02-09-2022, 07:38 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The Rams defense has allowed more ppg this year at home than the Bengals defense has allowed on the road. 

STOP BASHING RAMS FANS!  THOSE STATS MEAN NOTHING!  (Okay, I'll stop)

(02-09-2022, 04:01 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: The mistake so many people make when analyzing Super Bowl matchups is relying on season-long body of work data and modeling. I understand the mindset -- it's a larger sample size and therefore it should be more reliable.

The problem is: models of NFL success are almost universally terrible at the level of game-to-game prediction. They're just bad. Moreover, the Super Bowl isn't won by the team that performed at the highest level throughout the season. It's won by the team that performed at the highest level in the game. Perhaps postseason stats alone provide a better gauge just for recency's sake, but even that is dubious.

Both of these teams have had to overcome very difficult opponents to get to this point. The Bengals especially have had to get through at least two that were better on paper by every meaningful metric in the book. No model on Earth said the Bengals were favored in Kansas City. We can either say "they defied probability and got lucky" or we can say "the Bengals were a better football team than the Chiefs on 30 January, 2022". To scoff at the latter is nonsense in my view.

The Super Bowl will be no different. All of the prognosticating and especially the smack talk -- it's irrelevant noise. There is no model good enough to answer the question "who will win?" with any degree of reliability, and therefore we cannot really determine what to expect until we're watching the game live.

Well said JaggedJimmy. We don't know what team will show up. The team that wants it the most and makes the least amount
of mistakes will be the team that wins. In the Playoffs both teams have been great against quality opponents and that is why 
they are here. These are the 2 best teams in the NFL. It will be tough.

(02-09-2022, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is total yardage.

And they were 6th in pass attempts against them.

When you look at efficiency they are top 5.

True.

(02-09-2022, 04:04 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You have to be careful using standard rankings. They tell you nothing. The Rams rank 22nd in pass defense because....they faced the 6th most pass attempts. However, despite facing the 6th most pass attempts, they have the 5th best rating allowed (83), favorable EPA numbers and the 2nd fewest TDs allowed. It has been tough to pass on them this season, which is in part to their ferocious pass rush. 

I have faith that Cincinnati can pass on them, this is a very good team in their own right. There is some reality when discussing stuff like this and for everyone saying that the Rams possess a middle of the pack or mediocre pass defense, it just isn't true. That's a very good defense that matches up poorly with our offense. It's not insurmountable by any means, but they will be tough. 

Spot on honestly. Just saying you can pass on them, we just have to have a good scheme prepared to attack them with.

Chase in the Slot a lot, Mixon coming out of the backfield for screens and dump offs, middle TE screens, slants and try to run 
the ball in 2nd and short to wear AD and company out. It will be a battle, no one is saying any different besides a slim few.

All I know is as much as is being made about Donald matching up against our pathetic OL not much is being said about our 
DL going against their OL or much at all about our Defense and the main reason we are where we are.

(02-09-2022, 05:07 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: They didn't really face anyone.

Brady torched them for 432 yards and 103.0 rating.
Murray was great in the 1st game (268 yards, 120.3 rating)
But meh in the 2nd game (383 yards, 72.1 rating)
Rodgers was solid (307 yards, 97.2 rating)

These 4 games, the Rams gave up 24, 37, 36 and 23 points.

Aside from that, they didn't face any great QBs on good teams.

Even in the playoffs they got an easy ride. The Cards were falling apart. Brady lost half his weapons (still scored 27). Then they got Jimmy G with a throwing hand injury.

We'll be one of the 3 most daunting offenses they've faced all year, easily. They padded much of their defensive stats against the likes Dalton (Bears were awful), Daniel Jones, Jared Goff, Trevor Lawrence and Tyler Huntley.

The Rams did get those so called top teams right at the perfect times for them.

Unlike us, we got the Raiders coming off a 4 game winning streak, we got the Titans RIGHT when they finally got healthy
and we got the best Chiefs roster we may ever see.

(02-09-2022, 05:28 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: Rams should have lost to 49ers, if their player did not have hands of stone.  I think the 49ers are the better team from the NFC. 

A couple things.  The great equalizer against good defenses are turnovers.  The Bengals are creating turnovers.  
Stafford will throw INT's against the Bengals.  

I think that Titan team the Bengals beat is every bit as stout on defense Line as the Rams.  That front seven was 2nd in NFL against rush.  Titans were 6th in points allowed.  

I don't know what the Rams Defense final rankings are but I remember them in the lower quadrant 23rd or lower on total yards allowed.  They were good in not allowing teams to score.  I think they were not better compared to Titans but close, maybe 6th in points allowed.  The problem the Rams are going to have with the Bengals is LB and short dink passes that will negate Rams pass rush.  Screens, draws, quick slants.  Rams were playing single high safety sometimes two high.  If they do not bracket Chase, and Burrow goes outside the pocket, Burrow-Chase connection will happen.  

The Rams being "low-key" is because they are underestimating the Bengals, like most in NFL have the since they won the division.  The "energy" you speak of is the media, fans, not the team.  Players are enjoying themselves, sure, but Burrow and others are steady.  Rock solid.  The media loves underdogs.  Bengals certainly are the underdogs.  

Burrow is not your normal QB.  Hitting him does not affect his play. The Rams are only 4 point favorites for a reason.    

Completely agree with all of this and these are the reasons I expect us to pull out the win. Stafford will turn the ball over,
we have been tested by an arguably better Defense in the Titans and won. We have played an Offense that usually doesn't
turn the ball over and is arguably better than the Rams in the Chiefs and made Mahomes turn the ball over which he never 
does. Burrow plays well under pressure, Stafford does not etc.

Rams fans be sipping wine with an extended pinky finger while eating stinky cheese at their tailgate parties and slinging purse boy smack about whilst deeming themselves hard nosed.

Lol that's freaking priceless.

Just remember all the same experts who are making the Rams D out to be the 85 Bears and ignoring our D also said the Chiefs DL would destroy Burrow and ignored our D. And what happened? Burrow did fine and our D made Mahomes look bad after the first 3 drives.

(02-09-2022, 06:14 PM)Nepa Wrote: I don't understand these ratings you have. I don't have a subscription to Football Outsider DVOA, so I couldn't check the stats overall, but you have only listed 7 defenses that the Bengals have face, and only 5 offenses that the Rams have faced. 

To me it doesn't seem to mean much when you are only presenting selective rankings on the extreme ends. You seem to be skipping those defenses that are stout that the Bengals played and only list five teams that have good offenses that the Rams played. 

Wouldn't you agree that is kinda meaningless to present such selective stats?

This is why I ignored his post, it was selective towards a bias.

(02-09-2022, 06:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both.  Chargers were #8 in attendance per game this year (71,598).  Rams were #10 (70,240).

Bengals were 29th (60,325)

2021 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League - ESPN

When searching overall attendance at statistic.com claims

Rams .......572,791 in 2021
Bengals....542,929  in 2021

(02-09-2022, 06:55 PM)CoachGeorge Wrote: No, I don’t think that presenting cherry picked stars is meaningless.  I try to protect intellectual property when using a subscription service when posting to a message board.  

The narrative on this thread was that the Rams defense has played nobody throughout their schedule.  The played 7 games against top 7 offensives. To me, that is significant.  You can look at their schedule on your own to determine who was a “gimme” game.  Keep in mind we lost to the lowly Jets.

The Bengals have played 8 games against bottom tier defensives.  The notion that LA hasn’t seen an offense this good is pretty obviously false.

Its the Super Bowl and obviously both teams are good. Yet its no time to cower down to anyfreakinbody at this juncture but time to load that slingshot and bust Goliath right between the eyes. 

Time to seize the Dey !

(02-09-2022, 08:44 PM)Go Cards Wrote: When searching overall attendance at statistic.com claims

Rams .......572,791 in 2021
Bengals....542,929  in 2021

The Bengals did have the extra home game and the Rams had the extra away game. Still, the Rams' attendance was not twice the Bengals' attendance. 

Although I realize technically Fredtoast was arguing that LA -- including the Rams and the Chargers -- had twice as many fans attending home games as Cincinnati did. But, geez Louise, including two teams and twice as many games to make that argument of double the number of fans is sophistry at its finest.