Andy T

I've been looking at some number-trends and while there's obviously been a gradual decline in passing YPC as long as the NFL's been around, I noticed that from 1989 to 1991 the drop was especially steep, and that when graphed, it was like there was 2 groups of gradual declines (1989 & before, and 1991+).

The same was true of just WR YPC, so it wasn't just an increase in passes going to RBs. The only rule changes I've been able to find have been related to the clock or illegal hits & such. My only remaining guess would be a "soft" reason, such as many more teams adopting the west-coast (short passing) offense.

Here is the setup I m working with

https://s1.postimg.org/7x9pwrpzlb/temp_football.jp...

Is there some combination of functions I could use to, in column Q, sum the values in the left table that match up to the years listed by each player?

Ex: Aaron Rodgers first year was 2005, and last (/current) 2017. Could I use some equation to sum all the completions (for the whole league, the left table) from 2005 to 2017 - and then when I drag that down it would do the same for each player s respective years? (ex: 85-99 for Young, 98-2015 for Peyton Manning, etc).

I d like to be able to sum like this for completions (Cmp) & Yards so I could find the league-average yards per completion for the range that each player played (easily, rather than manually for every single player).

Doing my research I found that you can change things about the default new-book in Excel by creating/editing a Book.xltx (& Sheet.xltx) file.

However, in testing this, this only changes the default formatting of the sheets themselves, not the selected options. That is, even before when I opened a new Excel book there was no border, no fill, & the font color is black if I start typing. Saving the Book template file with no border/no fill/black selected does not affect whether they re selected when you open a new book. The book has that formatting, but the options up in the ribbon are always defaulted to underline-border, yellow fill, red text.

What I use Excel for most often is working with sports-stats, and so when I paste tables from online sources, I want to get rid of any border/fill/off-color-text that tables may have. It would be easier to just give 3 clicks to those 3 options, if the defaults were different (rather than opening each menu & choosing different options).

I understand they re probably the defaults that they are, because it s expected you want to add unique formatting to the default things you ve typed yourself (in no-fill, black)...but it d be really helpful if you could change these defaults.

PFF did, but obviously that s not available even w/a subscription anymore. I m trying to get accurate pass/run ratios for teams, and there s enough scramble-heavy QBs that I think it could make some serious changes on the list.

(I would think someone would know this if they tried to answer, but just in case - a scramble is when the QB runs AFTER originally dropping back to pass. The team called a pass-play, but the QB decided to run instead of passing. On the play-by-play (& thus mainstream sites) it gets marked as a run, but it s misleading about the context).

I'm in the middle of configuring my e1200 (v2) into a bridge. I installed dd-wrt successfully and the tutorial for creating a wireless bridge (I want to receive wireless from my "far away" router and then run cable from the e1200 into my TV that only can use a physical cable) says to restore to factory defaults.

I did that, but now it won't let me log into the default address (192.168.1.1) when I'm only manually connected to the router (w/no internet). I just get:

This site can’t be reached

192.168.1.1 took too long to respond.

If I log into the WIFI it's putting out (but no internet, right now), that's the only way I can access it. BEFORE I reset to factory defaults I COULD access it with just a cable. I ran into this issue back when we used the e1200 as the main wireless router (and before it had dd-wrt), but I just worked around it. Now I'd like it if someone could explain this to me. Is there a setting that I had changed after-default that let me access it w/the cable? (IDK why that wouldn't be an out-of-box option).

Does anyone know the cause of this issue?

I know Football Outsiders has success rate for running backs with at least 100 carries (by the end of the season), but I'm looking for it collected for an entire team (on a per-season basis).

I know Pro Football Reference has play-by-play data available -- so you can paste to a spreadsheet and calculate the SR for yourself -- but you can only return 500 plays at a time so I'd really rather just leave this as a last resort.

I've found how to create a cut-off for the total, but not each item.

An example of what I mean: I'm summing 6 numbers (in each row), but if a number is larger than 120 I want it to only be counted as 120 when being summed. (So I don't have to look over the 6#s to see if the total was inflated by 1 of the #s being VERY large, I'll know it's "balanced").

I figure I could put a MIN formula over each number, inside the sum (SUM(MIN(120,cell1),MIN(120,cell2)... etc), but if there's something simpler out there, I'd like to know (if only for future reference where I maybe dealing with more numbers per-sum).

I have some columns of data that are each a specific color (the cells) and I'd like to have a quick visual high/low indicator (the GYR) with still keeping the existing color-coding. The new-rule method only allows you to pick a format (such as font color > cell color) when the condition like "all numbers equal-to/greater-than/less than ___", not a high-low method.

I've used gen 4/5 editors that let you give abilities to pokemon that normally they could never learn. The gen-3 ones I've found so far (like A-Save, or PokeCrafter) only let you change abilities if they naturally can be found with different abilities. (There's YAPE, but that hacks the whole game, & I'm looking to only hack my own pokemon). I'm no expert on the fine-details, but this seems a little weird, seeing as you can give them attacks they normally could never learn.

From what I've read your voice is supposed to sound HIGHER in recordings, b/c when you hear it while speaking some of the sound waves are spreading out through bone, making it seem deeper than it originally was.

I'm not sure if it's the quality of recording, but when I've heard myself recorded, it's always considerably (IMO) deeper than how I hear myself speak. (Could a lower quality recorder - like cell phone video, not capture some higher frequencies?...I can't think of a reason I'm experiencing the opposite of what's generally true).

The neck of my power adapter (right below the right-angle plug) is super frayed & is causing connection problems, I've been looking at replacements and was wondering if the specs. had to match EXACTLY or if some specs could be better/strong.

My current adapter is 19V, 3.42A, 65W. (And with center-positive polarity, which I know is one aspect that HAS to match). I saw some in stock at nearby stores that were 90W, and was wondering if that would be okay (it was a "universal" one w/multiple adapter tips, which makes me think it is okay), or if I need those specs^ EXACTLY.

To what I mean by "builds":

There are some where the FMT can be used without connecting to the car-charger, some that are wired (with the FMT in the middle of a cord with one side attached to the charger & one side plugging into your device), or ones where the FMT & charger are a single unit.

Obviously design isn't the sole source of problems that could occur, but I'm interested to know if enough people (who've tried multiple types) have had trouble with a certain kind more than others.

It's hard to describe in just a question, so let me explain:

I have a collection of sets of columns - 3 columns (let's just say 1,2, & 3) with a merged header of the year (2014, 2013, 2012, etc). At the end of this I have a column for each year & the formula in question -> (1+2)/3.

If the 2014 1,2,&3 cells were in A3, B3, & C3 I would type the formula as (A3+B3)/C3. If I drag this formula to each of the year-columns, the next cell would have a formula of (B3+C3)/D3 - obviously NOT what I am going for (which would be (D3+E3)/F3).

Is there a way (such as changing the formula, adding "$" somewhere, etc), to make it so that when I drag the formula into the next cell(s), it goes onto using the NEXT group of 3 & not include any of the previous ones. ex: (A3+B3)/C3 then (D3+E3)/F3 then (G3+H3)/I3, etc etc

Say I want to add various sets of numbers, but don't want the totals (where I'm looking for the largest total) to be influenced too much by an outlier.

If I didn't care if any given value was over 100 (that it was "overkill"), would there be a way to add them up, and only count every number 100-or-more as just 100? (even if I did the adding separately, just an equation to "change" any 100+ to just 100)

I was using an ipad that was not my own & because I knew before hand the opportunity might come up, I uploaded some of my digital comics (in jpg form) to my google-drive, to remotely read them on the ipad,

The standard vertical pages looked gorgeous & required no zooming. However, there are also horizontal pages (2 normal pages combined into 1 image) & even when turning the ipad on it's side, the aspect-ratio differences require you do some zooming. When I tried (finger-touch) zooming, I found that the the image didn't take much zooming before becoming blurry - especially the text. The dimensions of the images are over 3000x3000 (9 mega pixels), so it's not a case of stretching the image larger than the original size.

I thought this was a case of Drive not allowing viewing of the full-size (as I know other image-hosts do this. You can't see the whole size unless you download it. Viewers see a compressed version), but when I was able to get back to my own computer (laptop), I tested zooming on the same panels I had trouble with earlier and found when zooming, it was fine. The image was "re-sampled" & the text was very clear.

Does anyone know the source of this little problem I ran into? Would there be away to "correct" it?

Assuming we're talking about a fixed resolution (say, 1920x1080), is there (in someone's experience) a minimum amount you need to increase the bitrate for the quality increase be worth the effort of doing so? 15%? 30%? 50? 66? etc.

(Obviously there's an issue of what quality is good enough for the viewer, based on screen size & viewing distance, but this is assuming you DO want to increase the bitrate)

My dad was telling me he saw such a highlight (said the guy was practically under a pile & escaped, running all across the field) but he didn't remember the team (& neither of us watch college football). It sounded very cool but I haven't been able to find it (the keywords are too general).

Any college football fan know which play (/game) my dad was talking about? I'd love to see it.

The number I am referring to is what you see when you (on Win7) right click on the network you're connected to & go to "status" --> the speed number, the speed you're able to communicate with the wireless router.

I do what I can to get a good signal (ideal channel (after scouting with inSSIDer), broadcast only N, etc), and I have observations that could explain (involving others being connected, or being worse on weekends when nearby people are actively sending data across nearby networks) - but nothing straight up documented (and I prefer facts/numbers to just observations like that).

Now the thing is, this isn't a consistent lower-than-advertised signal (what people usually ask about online), it's a once-&-a-while fluctuation (ie: I don't think it's something inherently wrong with the router). We have a well-regarded router for the price-range we were looking at - a Linksys e1200 (300N router), so I don't think it's a "defect". The actual max speed I've seen is 144mpbs - but perfectly okay, since we just use it for internet (not streaming between devices, etc). SOMETIMES (most days it's fine) I notice the number drops to ~100, sometimes ~50-80 range, and sometimes even ~30, ~15, or lower. It will fluctuate though, & this is the rub -- ie: I hadn't changed a setting, or changed my distance (signal strength is constant, via inSSIDer, -60 to -50 at furthest) & it will jump around, sometimes perfect & others dismal.

What other variables could be affecting this?

I know this sounds like a simple question - but rather what I'm asking is....is it ONLY because whoever's in charge thinks black-bars on the top & bottom will turn people off? (& thus hurt viewer numbers & they'd lose money).

Back when 4:3 TVs were the norm. I know more people had issues with crops (when wide-screen movies were played), but 16:9 widescreen is pretty much the norm now, and most HD TV programs are shot in 16:9 (and if you turn to the standard-def versions of the channels, they're "bared off" to be widescreen, rather than cropped down to 4:3).

I was just surprised earlier - we changed our cable package & they gave us 1 year of STARZ free. Honestly I download any movie I want to see so I didn't care. However, when I did see some movies in the guide that I also had on my computer (but hadn't watched yet) - I decided to record them. I could be on my computer while watching, it'd be better quality than hooking my computer to the TV (they're good, but very compressed - I like to save file-space even for 1080p HD), etc. After a bit I noticed/realized the ratio fit my TV (16:9) even though I was sure the movie ratio was 21:9. I checked the same scene on the TV & my comp. & realized it was cropped (& the example scene was quite different when cropped). I just thought this was weird...that on a pay-movie-channel (more specific viewer type) on an already widescreen broadcast, they'd crop it....JUST to avoid bars?? (not much of a diff. as with widescreen vs. 4:3)