Starting Line-ups vs. Optimal: Week 13
1. Beavers: 93 vs. 140; Diff: 47 (won by 36)
2. Flannel: 81 vs. 117; Diff: 36 (Tied)
3. Bill: 67 vs. 98; Diff: 31 (lost by 13)
4. Malleus: 93 vs. 118; Diff: 25 (won by 35)
4. Capo: 62 vs. 87; Diff: 25 (won by 15)
6. Mimes: 54 vs. 78; Diff: 24 (lost by 36)
7. Brawlers: 62 vs. 83; Diff: 21 (lost by 22)
8. Hamburglers: 50 vs. 64; Diff: 14 (lost by 15)
9. Old No. 7: 77 vs. 87; Diff: 10 (won by 13)
10. Ramjets: 65 vs. 74; Diff: 9 (Tied)
11. Rednecks: 63 vs. 70; Diff: 7 (lost by 35)
12. Drow: 87 vs. 92; Diff: 5 (won by 22)
Game changers this week: Joe Flacco 23 (vs. Peyton Manning’s -3) would have erased Flannel’s tie game with Ramjets. Chris Johnson’s 22 (vs. Marion Barber’s 8) would’ve been just enough for Bill to beat Old No. 7. It is interesting that three of the top five point wasters (myself included) won their games, and also that the six of the top seven FLOF teams (all but one playoff bound) are the top point wasters, all except Doug...
2. Flannel: 81 vs. 117; Diff: 36 (Tied)
3. Bill: 67 vs. 98; Diff: 31 (lost by 13)
4. Malleus: 93 vs. 118; Diff: 25 (won by 35)
4. Capo: 62 vs. 87; Diff: 25 (won by 15)
6. Mimes: 54 vs. 78; Diff: 24 (lost by 36)
7. Brawlers: 62 vs. 83; Diff: 21 (lost by 22)
8. Hamburglers: 50 vs. 64; Diff: 14 (lost by 15)
9. Old No. 7: 77 vs. 87; Diff: 10 (won by 13)
10. Ramjets: 65 vs. 74; Diff: 9 (Tied)
11. Rednecks: 63 vs. 70; Diff: 7 (lost by 35)
12. Drow: 87 vs. 92; Diff: 5 (won by 22)
Game changers this week: Joe Flacco 23 (vs. Peyton Manning’s -3) would have erased Flannel’s tie game with Ramjets. Chris Johnson’s 22 (vs. Marion Barber’s 8) would’ve been just enough for Bill to beat Old No. 7. It is interesting that three of the top five point wasters (myself included) won their games, and also that the six of the top seven FLOF teams (all but one playoff bound) are the top point wasters, all except Doug...
Labels: 2008
5 Comments:
In hindsight, I should have stuck with McNabb. Thankfully it did not cost me a victory.
I think there is another way to look at this sometimes.
If you are scoring a lot of points while leaving points on the bench it might be more of a sign of quality depth then particularly bad coaching.
And depth can help make teams successful over the course of a season.
Now if your team does not score a lot of points and there are better players riding the pine, then that might be a sign of less then optimal coaching.
You know Doug, it's funny, but I was going to say the same thing after I posted this last night. "Wasted" points, could just mean a strong bench. When your bench QB scores 23 and your starter scores -3, that might have been a bad decision. When your starter scores 15 and your bench guys scores 20, it just means you have two quality players.
I am not sure that Peyton Manning over Joe Flacco can ever be considered a bad decision. Flacco just had a better week; this will be a rare occurence.
I didn't say that Manning over Flacco was a bad decision, although Flacco was playing the Bengals, just that it would have changed the outcome of the game.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home