Yeah it turns out there's no known mechanism for non-ionizing radiation (visible light and lower wavelengths basically) causing cancer. But I wouldn't call that research wasted considering the consequences of potentially finding a small but reliable increase in cancer risk. We once thought ionizing radiation didn't have any health issues. Radioactive substances were once marketed as medicinal products without knowing the risks, and radiation was only linked to cancer after large scale (animal) studies. So you have to follow those leads, especially since tons of devices (e.g., your laptop!) emit the kinds of extremely low frequency EM waves that high power lines do. A positive result would have had huge consequences.
As Cbrad points out there are many other factors at play. However, I want to talk about z-scores as opposed to rankings. I will just talk about ppg on offense, but the same applies to defense. Also whether you use ppg, yards, passer rating, yards per attempt or whatever measure you want to use. Your ranking in a given year depends on how the other teams in the league perform. If you take 2011 for example the New Orleans Saints scored 34.2 ppg. That’s the 6th best of all time (4th best all time in 2011). Yet in a ranking system they were #2 that year behind the Packers who scored 35.0 ppg. The ranking system puts them lower than the 2015 Panthers (31.3 ppg) the 2014 Packers (30.1 ppg) and so on. Another example of why ranking systems should not be used is 2013 the #1 Broncos scored 37.9 ppg (#1 all time) and the #2 Bears scored 27.8 ppg. In a ranking system the 2013 Bears and 2011 Saints are both equal, yet the Saints scored a TD (not including pat) more per game. Rankings treat every #1 ranked team as equal strength which just is not true. The 2007 Patsies scored 36.8 ppg. Were they equal to the 2008 #1 Saints who scored 28.9 ppg. However if you look at z-scores you will find out how much better than average the team is and that can inform you if the matchups were of equal strength or if the defense or offense were stronger.
There's been three times when a team had the #1 offense and the #1 defense.....the 72 Fins were one of those teams ('79 Steelers and the '96 Packers were the other two). Not that it means anything- I just found it interesting.
I know what your argument is - I figured you would recognize sarcastic hyperbole since it's one of your go to's. A QB can't win alone, no. They can't make up for an entire team of weakness, no. Nobody is suggesting that. But I am disputing that the QB can be a weak point. To be clear, there is no such thing as a "complete team." Doesnt happen. Between the cap, coaching, injuries, etc there is no complete team by the time the playoffs roll around. Having an elite QB helps overcome some weakness. For example, during Seattles recent run, they had a fantastic defense. Absolutely. However, they also had an abysmal OL - a clear weakness. They mitigated that weakness with Wilson, an elite QB who's strengths offset that godawful weakness. Would Tannehill have had that same success? Not a chance in hell imo. To win with a JAG at QB you dont just need a "complete team" you need a historically good team outside of the QB. Look at the Ravens under Dilfer. Not even a historically great defense, but also incredible special teams and running attack. Same for the Bears under Grossman - you think they reach the super bowl without Hester? Every super bowl run has elements of luck to it. Having an elite QB and building a complete team around them is generally a good way to reduce bad luck and variables. It also does a better job at extending the number of runs a viable team can make. That good defense can be derailed by an injury or lose a guy in FA. Kickoffs can be eliminated by the league. That QB can help cover and push the team forward. Rolling with just a guy under center is basically a hail Mary, and doubly so in the modern NFL.
'72 Dolphins are actually the only team in NFL history to have been ranked #1 in points scored, total yards, points allowed and yards allowed, regardless of whether they won a SB or not. Add that to the SB win and the 17-0 record and I don't care what fans of the '85 Bears say the '72 Dolphins were the greatest NFL team ever. btw.. next closest in terms of total rank (summing all 4 ranks) is the '95 49er's: #1 in points scored, #2 in yards, #2 in points allowed and #1 in yards allowed. They didn't win the SB though.
It would be cool if we could embed that season somewhere on this site...I'd watch it. Here's an old highlight video- This one goes into a little more detail with modern updates-
I never liked mike mccarthy. I thought he did good in the beginning with mike holmgrens team and a rod kept the team relevent till now. To much talent on that team not to be contenders? I personally don’t like gb. So I’m OK if they never do good again. I would like to give gase a little more time. Bellicheck wasnt a good head coach in the beginning. Gase is smart and young with some potential. We could have e great coach for a long time. If he figures it out.
He should wear a hat that says "MLCA" He can petition for the head spot under "Make Lambeau Clean Again"
