|
Every wing official from high school up coaches his receivers to get them checking if they're OK. Nobody goes to a football game to watch 5-yard penalties being enforced. Look at me, tell me where you think you are, I can move you there if you're not, everything keeps moving. Same reason as white hats yell "gone!" after a kick or pass so the rushers can pull up, and umpires on kick plays remind the defenders "stay off the snapper, let him recover". Something else you might see, particularly if there's a lot of noise in the stadium, is the receiver pointing straight down at his foot for "I'm on the line", and behind himself at an angle for "I'm off the line".
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Is there any place where I can find decent (i.e. not poo poo) analysis of the quality of each team's squad in general? Something like a pre-season rundown.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
VisAbsoluta posted:Is there any place where I can find decent (i.e. not poo poo) analysis of the quality of each team's squad in general? Something like a pre-season rundown. I found a pretty decent article highlighting each teams strengths. http://lindyssports.com/nfl/column/nfl-analysis-selecting-strength-of-every-team/223088
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
VisAbsoluta posted:Is there any place where I can find decent (i.e. not poo poo) analysis of the quality of each team's squad in general? Something like a pre-season rundown. Also there is a user on reddit who wrote individual articles for each team prior to the season. /u/sosuhme Very in depth. http://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/28wkls/analysis_of_all_42973_plays_from_the_nfls_2013/
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been covered before, or is too dumb a question to live, but when the NFL decides it wants to add an expansion team for whatever reason, where do they get the players? Do all the existing teams have to give up a quota of their players? I cant imagine that the new team would be made up exclusively of rookies, so I guess the experienced pros have to come from somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Apologies if this has been covered before, or is too dumb a question to live, but when the NFL decides it wants to add an expansion team for whatever reason, where do they get the players? Do all the existing teams have to give up a quota of their players? I cant imagine that the new team would be made up exclusively of rookies, so I guess the experienced pros have to come from somewhere. What they've done in the past is have an expansion draft, where the new team gets to pick players from the other teams. Each team gets to protect a few star players so they aren't hurt too badly. Then it's treated like normal attrition. Everybody drafts/signs new players to fill the holes and life goes on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:What they've done in the past is have an expansion draft, where the new team gets to pick players from the other teams. Each team gets to protect a few star players so they aren't hurt too badly. Ah I see, neat, thank you. Does that happen at the same sort of time as the regular draft?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Ah I see, neat, thank you. Does that happen at the same sort of time as the regular draft? Expansion teams usually also get a favorable placement in the regular draft. The Texans even got a whole bunch of extra picks in 2002.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Back when the Browns were re-created, though, the NFL forced them to draft a hyped up college QB and then required them to pay their offensive linemen minimum wage, which is why they wound up with fat sacks of poo poo who couldn't do anything Also Chris Palmer was their drat coach because the NFL held a gun to their head iirc
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
football fuckerman posted:Back when the Browns were re-created, though, the NFL forced them to draft a hyped up college QB and then required them to pay their offensive linemen minimum wage, which is why they wound up with fat sacks of poo poo who couldn't do anything And how was this was worse than the voluntary roster decisions the Browns have made since?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:And how was this was worse than the voluntary roster decisions the Browns have made since? Browns actually hired Romeo Crennel after a coke binge and drafted Brandon Weeden in a fugue state
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
football fuckerman posted:Browns actually hired Romeo Crennel after a coke binge and drafted Brandon Weeden in a fugue state Drafting JFF makes much more sense now
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
KettleWL posted:Drafting JFF makes much more sense now That was because a homeless dude told you guys too. no really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9upEb-gQMw
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:What they've done in the past is have an expansion draft, where the new team gets to pick players from the other teams. Each team gets to protect a few star players so they aren't hurt too badly. http://www.ehow.com/list_7216709_nfl-expansion-draft-rules.html This is for the 2002 draft. The fact the NFL hosed over the Browns because of the success of the Jaguars and Panthers (Conference Championship games in 1996-97 after just 2 years), made them unfuck the expansion draft for the Texans. Here is a good article on the 1999 expansion draft: http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2009/01/the-1999-browns-expansion-draft/ The Browns missed out on future Hall of Fame Quarterback Kurt Warner The NHL draft expansion draft is reversed. The teams submit a list of like 12 or 15 players(either 1 goalie, 5 defencemen, and 9 forwards, or 2 goalies, 3 defencemen and 7 forwards) to protect, and then the expansion teams pick from the rest. Teams work out hypothetical deals too, where say a Seattle team won't pick a certain unprotected player from New York, but in exchange New York will trade a draft pick or two to Seattle. gently caress the 1999 Expansion Draft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
There's also the morbid possibility of a disaster draft, which would happen if a team lost at least 15 players to death or disability. That unfortunate team would get the first pick in the next NFL draft and an expansion-type draft would be held as well. If a team lost 14 players, it would get nothing more than priority on waiver claims. http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2001/0328/1163463.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
For the last 3 years or so, Phil Sims in Madden football has been telling me that when an offense stays on the field for a long time, the defense gets tired and they make mistakes. Doesn't it stand to reason that the offense would also be getting tired and more prone to making mistakes? edit: I mean in real life. I wasn't asking a question about Madden football.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
The reality is that the offense knows what plays are being called, they can somewhat take it easy if they know their numbers aren't being called while the defense is always on its toes because they don't want to get beat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:For the last 3 years or so, Phil Sims in Madden football has been telling me that when an offense stays on the field for a long time, the defense gets tired and they make mistakes. Doesn't it stand to reason that the offense would also be getting tired and more prone to making mistakes? It's much more tiring to chase somebody than to run away from them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:It's much more tiring to chase somebody than to run away from them. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:For the last 3 years or so, Phil Sims in Madden football has been telling me that when an offense stays on the field for a long time, the defense gets tired and they make mistakes. Doesn't it stand to reason that the offense would also be getting tired and more prone to making mistakes? If it was true that defenses tire more than offenses, you'd expect to see an increase in scoring as the game progresses. You do not see this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:18
|
|
man
|
dokmo posted:If it was true that defenses tire more than offenses, you'd expect to see an increase in scoring as the game progresses. You do not see this. Average scoring by quarter for the NFL, 2014 1st: 4.4 2nd: 7.0 3rd: 5.4 4th: 6.5 So the 2nd quarter tends to have the most points scored. 4th quarter is second. This would support players getting tired toward the ends of the halves, with the scoring in the 4th quarter tempered by teams with a lead killing the clock rather than scoring at will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
It's also possible teams play more aggressively when the clock is about to run out, leading to more points in Q2 and Q4. Also a free timeout at 2:00 minutes left that you don't get in Q1 and Q3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
It's probably that the average starting field position in Q1 and Q3 is like the 20ish yard line due to it starting with a kickoff, rather than Q2 and Q4 where usually you aren't starting with a kickoff and are more likely to be closer to scoring at that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Average scoring by quarter for the NFL, 2014 Here are the average scores per drive over the last ten seasons (no special teams scores) that took place when the score differential was 10 points or less over the first ten drives: code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
dokmo posted:If it was true that defenses tire more than offenses, you'd expect to see an increase in scoring as the game progresses. You do not see this. What about the idea of tiring out more than the offense on long drives, opposed to in overall game time? Obviously that'd be harder to measure for because the more plays a drive lasts means it's had to have been successful on those plays, but is there any sign of a relationship after accounting for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
dokmo posted:Here are the average scores per drive over the last ten seasons (no special teams scores) that took place when the score differential was 10 points or less over the first ten drives: That doesn't really say what you think it does, since drive number doesn't correlate to any particular time in the game. Also, most offenses get 12 or even 13 drives in a game. It's not a huge effect at the NFL level, anyway. Defenses getting gassed is clearly a real thing, it's just difficult to measure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Defenses getting gassed is clearly a real thing, I'm not denying this, the question is whether they gas faster than offenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
dokmo posted:I'm not denying this, the question is whether they gas faster than offenses. They obviously do, as the offense can choose to run plays that are less stressful on their tired players, or choose plays that are more stressful on the most tired players on the defense. It is a transient phenomenon, though, so if you want statistical proof you're going to have to define the situation extremely carefully and rigorously to see its effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
This is really dumb and not football related, but what does the abbreviations in "N _____: V:_____ " mean? Like people constantly post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
VisAbsoluta posted:This is really dumb and not football related, but what does the abbreviations in News and Views. This thing happened (news) and here's what I think about it (views).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
VisAbsoluta posted:This is really dumb and not football related, but what does the abbreviations in Have you not noticed that people post it in threads with "Week [blank] N/V"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Have you not noticed that people post it in threads with "Week [blank] N/V"? He didn't know what the initials stood for, not that they were tied to the thread title. Did you really not figure that out on your own?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
No, I understood what he was asking. I was curious if he noticed the thread titles because his wording was "like people constantly post" and didn't mention the threads themselves, implying that people post them outside of N/V threads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Double post, but I have a question: What's the point of eligibility rules for college teams in transition between divisions? Georgia Southern is 7-2 playing a full FBS schedule, but they can't count as a Sun Belt champion or even make a bowl game unless there aren't enough eligible teams. That seems really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They obviously do, as the offense can choose to run plays that are less stressful on their tired players, or choose plays that are more stressful on the most tired players on the defense. I'm bothered by the notion that "they obviously do" combined with the idea that it's tough or impossible to measure. I've always accepted it as true for reasons like you describe and because the official talking heads of football repeat it so much. The small bits of data posted in this thread suggest that might not be true, or at least not to a degree that is significant enough that warrants its repeated mention. I'm not saying anyone has disproved it, but if its obviously true, there should be some obvious evidence of it that has yet to be shared.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
FreakyMetalKid posted:I'm bothered by the notion that "they obviously do" combined with the idea that it's tough or impossible to measure. I've always accepted it as true for reasons like you describe and because the official talking heads of football repeat it so much. The small bits of data posted in this thread suggest that might not be true, or at least not to a degree that is significant enough that warrants its repeated mention. I'm not saying anyone has disproved it, but if its obviously true, there should be some obvious evidence of it that has yet to be shared. Well, you can see it happening on the field. There are times you can tell a defensive team is gassed and they can't rush as effectively, they don't pursue the ball or tackle cleanly, or they commit stupid penalties due to sloppy technique. The problem here is the "if it can't be quantified it doesn't exist" mentality. I'm confident that it could be quantified if the correct stats were kept and they were interpreted the right way. I'm not sure the correct stats are actually kept, though, and the difficulty of defining what a tired player is and when that tiredness matters, deciding what that would look like in the data and then teasing out that one variable requires some rather serious thought and analysis. Thus proving it statistically is not a trivial problem. There are a lot of issues like that in sports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
I think you would want to start by estimating the expected number of points for a drive conditional on the offense's time of possession. Then you could say, "Conditional on the offense possessing the ball for 25 minutes, blah blah blah". This wouldn't be terribly hard if you had time of possession and the result of each drive across teams.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Its a lot less tiring to run places when those places are already determined than it is to chase people running to places when you have no idea where they are going. Seriously did any of you actually ever play football?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Cole posted:Its a lot less tiring to run places when those places are already determined than it is to chase people running to places when you have no idea where they are going. I think this is the right answer. I did play a little bit of football in HS but it was as a nose guard so I'm not sure it applied so much there. That was mostly about punishing the center and not letting anybody run past me. I wasn't good enough/fast enough to be pressuring quarterbacks with any frequency. e: also at the time I had hilariously little understanding of what most of the other players on the field were even doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, you can see it happening on the field. There are times you can tell a defensive team is gassed and they can't rush as effectively, they don't pursue the ball or tackle cleanly, or they commit stupid penalties due to sloppy technique. The problem here is the "if it can't be quantified it doesn't exist" mentality. If it can't be quantified, it may still exist, that's fair. However, if there's not a correlation between long drives and points or long drives and wins, then it's probably not a factor worth yapping about so frequently. I don't have the time or desire to attempt to do a lot of math myself on it, but some facts about the Pac 12: Colorado is 8th in the nation in time of possession at 33:30 per game. They've been holding down the bottom of the Pac 12 South. Washington State is 30th in time of possession and bottom of the Pac 12 North. ASU is on top of the Pac 12 South and ranked 9th in the country. Their TOP is 92nd at 28:42 per game. Their opponents have the ball longer! Oregon is on top of the Pac 12 North and ranked 4th. Their TOP is 122nd at 25:55. You can probably pick out some cases that lean the other way, but at least out West, keeping the other team's defense on the field is not the way to win. http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 06:50
|
|