|
swickles posted:The AFC West is lol Raiders. I miss it being lol raiders and chiefs. KC abandoned us. 
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
BlindSite posted:It's hard to call what he did the product of a system or him having inflated stats because a player has to have some strengths to be accentuated. Fact is though his mobility and ability to throw on the run and carry the ball on designed and broken plays helped his development. Shanahan had run offenses for over a decade using guys like Cutler, Elway and Plummer who could run and had good arms so he knew the best way to bring his strengths to the forefront. I would argue that his rookie injury derailed everything in between his rookie season and this past year. Thanks for the insight 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Are there any convenient links for assignments and strategies you (or anyone else) could post? Are there "hybrid" or "fake" defenses that look like they're defneding pass but are actually going to defend a run? I'll try and summarize a few of the marquee teams in a few words, hope this helps. I know the NFC better than the AFC so I have more thoughts there if you're curious. AFC Super Bowl participants since 2000: Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Broncos and Oakland one time back in 2002 when they were still good Denver Broncos: Peyton Manning offense (no huddle, lots of passing) New England Patriots: Tom Brady offense (fairly quick tempo, lots of passing to the tight ends) Pittsburgh Steelers: Formerly run-first and stout run defense, now a spread out passing attack with a mediocre defense (much to the anger of old-school fans in Pittsburgh) Baltimore Ravens: The Pittsburgh Steelers if things hadn't changed. Less adept at the passing game though. Oakland Raiders: Once proud franchise reduced to celebrating upset wins. Head Coach buried a football as a motivating tactic. Indianapolis Colts: See Denver Broncos for the 1998-2012 time period. Now the Andrew luck offense (which is similar)...and a terrible running game. Houston Texans: Bad passing offense with a really good defense. JJ Watt is one of the best NFC Super Bowl participants since 2000: Rams, Buccaneers, Panthers, Eagles, Bears, Seahawks, Giants, Cardinals, Saints, Packers, 49ers Seattle Seahawks: Stifling defense with a good run game and mobile QB. Green Bay Packers: Amazing QB with strong WRs. Bad pass defense that upsets Packer posters a lot. Play outside where it's really cold (Wisconsin) Philadelphia Eagles:  everywhere. Runs plays faster than anyone in the NFL and ends up tiring out defenses. Mediocre defense that's got a good d-line and linebackers (strong against run)Dallas Cowboys:  8-8 record for the last 3 years running. Strong passing and running game with an improved, but still flawed defenseNew Orleans Saints: See Packers, except they play inside and the defense is bad in all aspects. St. Louis Rams: Always the bridesmaid never the bride of the NFC West. Constantly injured QB with a strong defensive line. Probably moving to LA. I guess the one main difference between the two is that the NFC has far more parity than the AFC (compare the Super Bowl participant lists). axeil fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
axeil posted:Houston Texans: Bad passing offense with a really good defense. JJ Watt is one of the best linebackers ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:He might be if he played linebacker, but he doesn't. He's a defensive end? Now it is I who is the 1st Downy. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
TD:INT ratio seems like a pointless stat--wouldn't it make more sense to look at what percentage of your attempts are INTs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:TD:INT ratio seems like a pointless stat--wouldn't it make more sense to look at what percentage of your attempts are INTs? Yeah but lol if that will ever happen. It's a very easy visual stat to show, so people are going to keep using it. For the most part the TD/INT ratio will always be at least a partial indicator of how often the QB is prone to loving up compared to succeeding. High numbers of both would indicate a high risk High reward QB like Favre was, but low numbers on both would indicate a game manager type who isn't going to win you anything with his arm, even if he doesn't screw up much. but yeah, %of passes that are TDs/picked off/dropped/off target will always be better gauges for a QB because it shows you this data in more detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Yeah I'd rather they split out the INTs that bounced off the WRs hands first or were Hail Marys at the end of the half or something. There is sort of a line in the sand between statistics where you're just describing play results versus where you having to use your judgment (like drops etc.) though, so sometimes you just let stuff like that come out in the wash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Yeah, at that point you then need to start adding fumbles where the QB mis-reads a blitz or spends too long in the pocket and gets strip sacked. But yeah, I think TD:Int ratio is a stat that's lost relevance due to the passing changes where TD rates are shooting up and int rates down. It was a lot more relevant when hitting a 2:1 was amazing and not what Eli will probably hit this year while getting laughed at. Like, there have been 18 seasons where a QB's thrown 30+ TD's and 10 or less ints. 15 of them have occurred since 2004, 9 of them since 2010.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Is a spike or kneel counted against the QB rating/stats?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Is a spike or kneel counted against the QB rating/stats? Yeah they both are, although those plays are rare enough that it doesn't really change a whole lot. In the NFL sacks aren't counted against the QB specifically (other than noting that he took a sack), I believe the NCAA still counts sacks as negative rushing yardage for the QB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, at that point you then need to start adding fumbles where the QB mis-reads a blitz or spends too long in the pocket and gets strip sacked. I agree with you it's a slippery slope but it's annoying as poo poo sometimes when people trot our arguments mostly jerk offs like Bayliss that a qb is turnover prone because for example a left tackle completely wiffs on a block and the qb gets stripped and a drive later he throws an int when his receiver stops on his route or has the ball bounce of his hands. I've seen a few games where someone like Romo, Eli or Newton have played extremely well but their stat line was skewed because people around them made mistakes. Then the talking heads and even rival fans start regurgitating poo poo about them being in poor form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Seems like a sack should be considered negative passing yardage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:Seems like a sack should be considered negative passing yardage. why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:Seems like a sack should be considered negative passing yardage. I believe that's how the NFL does it. NCAA takes sacks out of rushing yardage, since there was no pass. NFL takes it out of passing yardage, since the intent of the play was to pass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:why? It seems sensible to subtract yards lost on a designed passing play from your passing yards. Though looking it up, apparently the NFL already subtracts them from the team total, but not the QB's. The NCAA's accounting doesn't make any sense to me--adding a rushing attempt and subtracting the yards lost from your rushing total isn't an accurate reflection of what happened. If your QB loses yards on a designed run it's one thing, but why call a failed passing play a failed rushing play? il serpente cosmico fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:It seems sensible to subtract yards lost on a designed passing play from your passing yards. Though looking it up, apparently the NFL already subtracts them from the team total, but not the QB's. NCAA offenses include a lot of run-pass options where the quarterback can do either one on a particular play. Sorting out what was intended is often not easy, and with hundreds of schools competing at multiple levels a simple standard makes record-keeping more uniform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Would an NFL team based in Omaha be a terrible idea? Imagine they moved the Bills there and made them swap divisions with Detroit or something I dunno. Please explain to me why this is stupid, thanks lads. Crayfish fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:Seems like a sack should be considered negative passing yardage. Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/passing.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:It seems sensible to subtract yards lost on a designed passing play from your passing yards. Though looking it up, apparently the NFL already subtracts them from the team total, but not the QB's. From a 'how good is X team at passing' or 'if I call a pass play what should expect to happen' perspective or pretty much any sensible question yeah those sacks should be scored as failed pass plays but then your data collection is some part art (and a pain).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Crayfish posted:Would an NFL team based in Omaha be a terrible idea? Imagine they moved the Bills there and made them swap divisions with Detroit or something I dunno. Because Omaha is a non-existent media market and presumably everybody in Nebraska is far more interested in the Huskers than any pro team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Crayfish posted:Would an NFL team based in Omaha be a terrible idea? Imagine they moved the Bills there and made them swap divisions with Detroit or something I dunno. Unless they'd be the Omaha Peyton Mannings I dunno too much about the city and if they'd have a big enough market for a team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
In addition to whether the city is big enough or not I'd imagine the Chiefs would fight against it since Omaha is supposedly 'theirs.' I don't think Omaha gives too much of a crap about the Chiefs one way or another but they're supposed to be part of the territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
I remember driving through Omaha on my way west and seeing a lot of Corn huskers stuff. Omaha is pretty close to Lincoln and probably a college town. I don't see a conversion to pro fandom being very likely. Also its Nebraska. There's no media presence there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Nebraska Windmills injury report WR Andre Peters (suicide watch) PROBABLE S Deangelo Thurmond (suicide watch) PROBABLE TE Larry Reynolds (self-mutilation) DAY TO DAY QB Tony Bertelson (missing person) QUESTIONABLE G Asante Davis (brown recluse bite) OUT DL Joe Henry (attempted suicide) IR
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Nebraska Windmills injury report this is a good post
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Crayfish posted:Would an NFL team based in Omaha be a terrible idea? Imagine they moved the Bills there and made them swap divisions with Detroit or something I dunno. Same reason Little Rock won't ever get a pro team more important than AA baseball. Terrible media presence, already part of another territory, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
What's the biggest regular season loss by a team that went on to win the Super Bowl? I remember the 49ers losing to the Eagles 40-8 in 1994, would that be it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:What's the biggest regular season loss by a team that went on to win the Super Bowl? I remember the 49ers losing to the Eagles 40-8 in 1994, would that be it? e: Actually I screwed up with 2011 season and 2012 Super Bowl. That was the year after. Diva Cupcake fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Yeah, that looks right. Other >30 point losses: 2003 Patriots 0, Bills 31 1976 Raiders 17, Patriots 48 2012 Ravens 13, Texans 43 Ozu posted:2011 Giants lost 34-0 to the Falcons. That was a 2012 game sadly. Their biggest loss was a 25 point beatdown by the Saints. Kalli fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, that looks right. ugh that Texans game was awful Joe Flacco decided that that game was the perfect time to start showing everyone his awesome Blaine Gabbert impression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
How powerful are recruiting rankings in terms of being predictive of NCAA football team successes? I'm a Johnny come lately Oregon fan and it seems like their recruiting ranking is often in the 20s and it seems like long term that will lead to bad things. Alabama is #1 a lot, and they win championships a lot. But I also see guys like Marcus Mariota 3*, JJ Watt 2*, so that gives me some hope. Edit: Looked it up. Oregon rank for recruiting. 2014: 26 2013: 22 2012: 16 2011: 9 2010: 13 2009: 32 Meanwhile in Tuscaloosa 2014: 1 2013: 1 2012: 1 2011: 1 2010: 5 2009: 1 Grifter fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Grifter posted:How powerful are recruiting rankings in terms of being predictive of NCAA football team successes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Grifter posted:How powerful are recruiting rankings in terms of being predictive of NCAA football team successes? I'm a Johnny come lately Oregon fan and it seems like their recruiting ranking is often in the 20s and it seems like long term that will lead to bad things. Alabama is #1 a lot, and they win championships a lot. But I also see guys like Marcus Mariota 3*, JJ Watt 2*, so that gives me some hope. Recruiting is an important part of college football, but it isn't the end all be all. You have coaches you are great recruiters, but can't develop players for poo poo and thus flame out (Brady Hoke), and ones who don't recruit very well but develop the ones they've got like hell and get good results (Peterson at Boise). Then you have god's like Saban who do both at an insane level. So yeah would better recruits help UO compete? Absolutely. Should you be super worried about it right now? Not really. I'd say you're overthinking it my man, but then again I am a college football fan who all but ignores recruiting because it's creepy and stupid in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
You have to be a little careful, as recruiting rankings aren't completely independent of program. Many players get uprated by being recruited by a major program, or downrated for being passed over. Major programs also tend to win, so the correlation is at least partially artificial. You also need coaches who can combine talent with skills and teamwork to make a winning team. There are plenty of teams with lots of highly ranked talent that stunk on the field (Michigan, Texas, and others). You also have teams with lower ranked players having great success (Michigan State, Mississippi State, and others). So recruiting rankings are important, but success on the field comes from many components.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Keep in mind recruiting is a lot like the draft. 5 star prospects flame out, and 2 star prospects go on to be NFL hall of famers. In college, it seems like finding the right players to succeed in a scheme is the most important thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Getting the right guys for the right scheme is good and all, but every now and then there are recruits that are just so athletically superior that you want to recruit them regardless. Watch Barry Sanders play for OSU. Their offensive game plan could have been to punt every first down and you would STILL try to go out and get him because no matter what, he was always the best player on the field and was worth six or seven wins (probably more) on the strength of his special teams play alone. Basically what I'm saying is, they don't recruit based on scheme the way the pros draft based on it. Its part of it, but pure athleticism gets you a LOT farther in college than it does the pros.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You have to be a little careful, as recruiting rankings aren't completely independent of program. Many players get uprated by being recruited by a major program, or downrated for being passed over. Major programs also tend to win, so the correlation is at least partially artificial. The problem with this is that you are assuming that the ranking sites are better at ranking recruits than the actual colleges. Its the same problem with the NFL, if you think Kiper/McShay are better than the actual team drafting the players, who have far more resources, then you are going to see discrepancies. The sites adjust based on who recruits who because they know that school staffs have more resources, and are likely better than their own meager staff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
swickles posted:The problem with this is that you are assuming that the ranking sites are better at ranking recruits than the actual colleges. Its the same problem with the NFL, if you think Kiper/McShay are better than the actual team drafting the players, who have far more resources, then you are going to see discrepancies. The sites adjust based on who recruits who because they know that school staffs have more resources, and are likely better than their own meager staff. I would put more stock in Kiper and McShay (but I don't, goddamn they annoy me sometimes) than a recruiting website simply because Kiper and McShay only give a poo poo about roughly 45 players in the draft, but colleges recruit out of almost every high school in America. Try ranking thousands and thousands and THOUSANDS of football players. You're going to gently caress up a lot of them on your first go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You have to be a little careful, as recruiting rankings aren't completely independent of program. Many players get uprated by being recruited by a major program, or downrated for being passed over. Major programs also tend to win, so the correlation is at least partially artificial. Yep. I mean look at the success Bill Snyder has and as you said, Michigan State which never recruits "highly touted" players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:36
|
|
