National Football League - Page 194 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1931  
Old 12-16-12, 03:37
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,104
Default

The great thing about Foxxy is he always provokes, er…discussion. Yes, Montana had some bad playoff games (though 1986 wasn’t really his fault; he got knocked out of the game in the first half, and before that happened, he threw a perfect TD strike to Rice, who improbably dropped the ball while running towards the endzone. The Giants recovered in the endzone. Had the ball bounced a few yards further, the 49ers would have retained possession; a few yards less, and the Giants would have been pinned near their own goal line. Even back in those days, the Giants were lucky at a statistically improbable level).

But all those TD passes to Rice weren’t catch-and-run. In one of the turning points in Rice’s career (because it finally helped him throw off the albatross of the 1986 dropped ball), Montana threw a deep bomb to him that beat the Giants in a regular season game in 1988. That was sort of the signal that the 49ers were a force to reckon with, and indeed, they won their 3d SB that year, and Rice’s first. He was MVP in that SB. Or how about those long passes that featured the 49ers remarkable comeback against the Eagles in early 1989, when Montana threw four TD passes in the 4th quarter? They went on to win another SB that year.

Montana did not have the strongest arm, but he could throw the deep ball to Rice. In any case, I think you overrate arm strength. Montana was one of the most accurate passers ever, and what might be the single most important trait of a QB, had a superb sense of timing. Sure, Walsh's system made it look easy, someone was always open, but only for a fraction of a second. You had to get the ball to him then and there. Probably no one was better at crossing patterns and quick slant-ins, seam patterns on rhythm and the like, though Fouts was a master at those, too.

In any case, you better be careful in arguing that Montana was ordinary because his backups were successful. Could apply the same argument to your current man-crush. Seems like every time RG3 goes down, Cousins steps in and plays just as well. Could it be the offensive unit of the Skins makes a larger contribution to their success than is acknowledged by RG3 fans? Not to mention that one of the big reasons RG3 has a huge statistical edge on Luck is because the Skins receivers run much further after the catch than the Indy receivers do. If RG3 doesn’t play Sunday and the Skins win, look for more speculation along those lines.

Can’t believe Madden said Rodgers and Flacco are on the same level. Serious? Rodgers is the career leader in passing efficiency, set the single season record last year, has won an MVP and a SB. What has Flacco done? I wouldn’t even put Flacco in the top ten. Manning and Brady may be in a class of their own, but Rodgers and Brees are close, and I might Rothlisberger in that group, too. Not the prettiest QB out there, but he sure makes a huge difference to that offense. After that, we can argue about Ryan, Schaub, Rivers, E. Manning, etc., as second tier.

ChrisE, don’t despair! Yes, the Houston defense has imploded, the team is maybe now third best in the AFC. But so what? Only once in the past fifteen years (Pats, 2003) has the team with the best record won the SB. Houston is actually in a pretty good position. Assuming they don’t collapse in the final three games, they should get a first round bye. Of their likely opponents in the divisional game, only Denver should be favored. They can beat the Ravens, Indy, the banged-up Steelers and Cincy. So I think they’re likely to get to the title game. They would probably meet NE there, which will certainly be favored, but who knows? Far stranger things happen in the postseason every year. Who thought the Giants would beat GB last year? Who thought Denver would beat the Steelers? Who thought NE would score only seventeen points in the SB?

Agree with the poster who says expanding the playoff teams is a bad idea. It’s hard to get a good balance. Too few, and most teams are out of the postseason picture near the end of the season, and fans of those teams lose interest. Too many, and the season doesn’t mean much. Also, as we discussed here last year, the more playoff games you play, the greater the chances of a bad game, meaning teams with the best, most consistent play during the regular season are more likely to get upset. One current feature I like is the first round bye, which rewards the top two division winners. But if the format is extended to sixteen teams, eight in each conference, then presumably all eight will play three rounds just to determine who goes to the SB. That will increase the chances for upsets.

I think it was Alpe who said it was only a matter of time before an 8-8 or 7-9 team gets to the SB. Expanding the playoff teams will not necessarily increase the number of teams like that, because you can’t get in as a wild card with a record like that. You have to play in a weak division, and division winners will get in under any likely system. But it will increase the chances that a team without the best record will go to the SB.
Reply With Quote
  #1932  
Old 12-16-12, 04:23
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
The great thing about Foxxy is he sometimes provokes, er…discussion. ...
Fixed, but true anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
In any case, you better be careful in arguing that Montana was ordinary because his backups were successful. Could apply the same argument to your current man-crush. Seems like every time RG3 goes down, Cousins steps in and plays just as well. Could it be the offensive unit of the Skins makes a larger contribution to their success than is acknowledged by RG3 fans? Not to mention that one of the big reasons RG3 has a huge statistical edge on Luck is because the Skins receivers run much further after the catch than the Indy receivers do. If RG3 doesn’t play Sunday and the Skins win, look for more speculation along those lines.
Splits by distance of throws:
RG3 Y/Att (Rating)
BLOS; 4.5 (94)
1-10; 6.0 (90)
11-20; 13.9 (110)
21-30; 18.2 (147)
31+; 14.5 (118)

Luck Y/Att (Rating)
BLOS; 4.7 (87)
1-10; 6.0 (79)
11-20; 8.7 (64)
21-30; 10.6 (86)
31+; 8.2 (56)

What do we see? On throws behind the line of scrimmage (BLOS) both RG3 and Luck average about 4 1/2 Y/Att.
On the other short throws (1-10 yds "air travel") both perform about the same too (6.0 Y/Att).
From 11+ yds on the stats show what i (and Simms) preach since april; arm strength is needed sometimes on difficult throws. No wonder bionic super man outperforms Luck by a whopping 5+ Y/Att (!!!!). Those numbers certainly will regress to the mean (when the sample sizes grow), but it´s obvious where the difference between RG3 and Luck lays...

OK, here we go. As Amsterhammer informed us, RG3 won´t play. I officially change my pick to CLE. (Too bad, i really looked forward to see RG3 in the playoffs. Another defensive cheap shot destroyed a season. Hope rules will be changed more and more, until the beauty of technique & motion prevails over brute senseless "defensive" strength )
Reply With Quote
  #1933  
Old 12-16-12, 06:35
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,924
Default

I may still stick with the Skins. Cousins has filled in well, took most of the snaps this week, and for those who remember him in college he was a pocket passer who didn't make many mistakes, while starting three years at Michigan State as the team captain. His velocity is good, but he's not accurate deep the way RGIII is (few are). Plus Cleveland's defensive secondary in average. A bigger question may still be the improving Weeden versus the improving Redskin pass defense.

Plus, as Foxxy likes to say, the QB may be the most important position, but it's still only 1 of 11.
Reply With Quote
  #1934  
Old 12-16-12, 15:41
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
Plus, as Foxxy likes to say, the QB may be the most important position, but it's still only 1 of 11.
Actually it´s 1/22 (outside kickers & punters).
Anyway, about the importance of QB-Play:
The best study was made by the guys of ProFootballProspectus in 2003 AFIR.
Even tough on a small sample size, they found out that on average the Starting-QB´s won approx. 1 more game during a season than their replacements (other studies showed more influence of the starting QB, but to me the methods looked doubtful).
Anyway, it means for example instead of going 9-7 with a replacement, the same team would go 10-6 with the true starting QB.
But that can be explained b/c the Starter has wayyy more reps in training with the 1st team offense (while the backup "pretends" to be the coming opponents QB in training with the 2nd team offense), has more knowledge of the playbook, works (normally) longer with the offensive coaches, the game plan is made to his strengths, has more freedom in play-calling (audibles), is trusted with more agressive in game play-calling.
OTOH, there are real bad starters and real good starters. So the very best (like Marino, RG3) might win more than the aprox. 1 game than the replacement, while the real bad (like Russell) win less than their replacements.
When i looked at guys like Marino & Warner it was obvious they had great (positive) influence on their team wins. OTOH, there was no visible difference in game outcomes by the likes of Montana, Young, Grbac and to some extend even Brady, Rodgers or you name it.
My conclusion is (which might be not 100% effiecient) that only extremly talented guys like RG3 make a difference.
So i think WAS season is destroyed by one cheap shot.
Reply With Quote
  #1935  
Old 12-16-12, 16:00
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxxyBrown1111 View Post
So i think WAS season is destroyed by one cheap shot.
I sincerely hope that you are wrong. and will continue to believe in 'the miracle of Cleveland' till the fat lady has sung.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #1936  
Old 12-16-12, 17:00
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxxyBrown1111 View Post
Anyway, it means for example instead of going 9-7 with a replacement, the same team would go 10-6 with the true starting QB.
I think this is too broad of a comment. Take a look at how Indy played without Manning last year for example.

You mention Warner, and I agree he was great, but the truth is when St. Louis had the "greatest show on turf", before him Green had been playing well, and Bulger, even Jamie Martin filled in okay.

A lot comes into play here.

I'm off to a sports bar with friends family. It will be a heavy Giants fanbase, and I'll be cheering for the Falcons. Wish me luck. Especially as I think the Giants could win by double digits.
Reply With Quote
  #1937  
Old 12-16-12, 19:11
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,576
Default

That´s true. At SL the contrast wasn´t stark with Warner in or not. But his real value was seen in New York and Arizona. There he was magic compared to his replacements. That´s the time i started to believe. That´s the reason i think he belongs to the HOF.

ATL up 17-0... Great
Reply With Quote
  #1938  
Old 12-16-12, 19:37
Tom T. Tom T. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxxyBrown1111 View Post
It´s my two cents, so you don´t have to like it.
BTW, i talked about QB´s, not team performance... just that little hint for you; Cassel put up the same stats as Brady in NE, he goes to another team and there you see...! Same with the Young´s, DeBerg´s, Detmer´s or whoever in this world.

No i didn´t know much about QB-Play. But now i know: If a team wins, the QB is great, if a team loses, he´s bad. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Next time around, just base your critic on facts, but don´t criticise for the sake of criticising. ESPN is there for you. We rather discuss here...
Blah, blah, blah. I did base my post on facts. Ask anyone with any inkling of knowledge about football and they will have Manning, Brady and Montana in their "best of" lists. To say Brady is a "system" qb is the most asinine thing I've ever read, and indicative of someone who has never actually watched him play. Same for Manning. Do you even have any idea of what those two do? They are like having a second head coach with the experience of a Belichick standing behind center. They manage the game like no others, and oh yeah, they are incredibly accurate with the ball. In a second, they look at what the defense is offering and instantly change the play to attack the weakness that is presented them. Sorry to call you out but you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #1939  
Old 12-16-12, 19:40
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom T. View Post
Blah, blah, blah. I did base my post on facts. Ask anyone with any inkling of knowledge about football and they will have Manning, Brady and Montana in their "best of" lists. To say Brady is a "system" qb is the most asinine thing I've ever read, and indicative of someone who has never actually watched him play. Same for Manning. Do you even have any idea of what those two do? They are like having a second head coach with the experience of a Belichick standing behind center. They manage the game like no others, and oh yeah, they are incredibly accurate with the ball. In a second, they look at what the defense is offering and instantly change the play to attack the weakness that is presented them. Sorry to call you out but you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Blablabla... I know nothing. Tschüss... Go to your ESPN believers and get a erection by discussing how great your greats are.

Last edited by FoxxyBrown1111; 12-16-12 at 19:44.
Reply With Quote
  #1940  
Old 12-16-12, 20:09
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
I think this is too broad of a comment. Take a look at how Indy played without Manning last year for example.
Since i can´t link the QB-Study from PFP 2003 (it´s written in a book), i looked for another study. Here is the link from the guys of pro-football-reference:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=581
They have the same conclusion: approx. 1 win above the replacements.
Last year i put up my numbers (at least i think) of playoff performances of the teams who reached the SB, by starters and replacements.
AFIR the Record for Starters were around .770 Wng.-Pct., the replacements had something around .740. That is almost no difference.
As the old saying goes "QB´s get too much credit when winning, and too much blame when losing".

OTOH, as i said, i think extremely talented guys like Warner, Marino and RG3 for example might be worth more than 1 win above the replacements...

@Amsterhammer... it´s tight 3 point behind CLE. Let´s hope for a WAS win, since the NYG get blown out. It could be a fantastic ending.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.