National Football League - Page 197 - 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
  #1961  
Old 12-19-12, 02:18
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
When the Giants won in 1986, it wasn’t luck, they were the dominant team in the regular season that year. In 1990 they upset the 49ers in the title game, and had some good luck (Craig fumbles when all the Niners had to do was run down the clock to two minutes and punt into the EZ), but also bad luck (WR drops a pass in the EZ). The 49ers were the dominant regular season team that year but the Giants were very good (when they met in the regular season, the 49ers eked out a 7-3 win; again, a Giants receiver dropped a sure TD pass, and in the final minutes the Giants were deep in 49er territory). They had some luck in winning the SB that year, but were a solid team, no fluke, no comparison to 2007 and last year.
Sorry Merckx. May i didn´t make my point clear with my posts/links this week (and long before): I meant the NYG of 1934, 1990, 2007 and last year. The 86 Giants were credible champs. No doubt about that, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Maybe. But the baseball Cardinals give them a good run in that department.
Not close....
2006, sure. That was a fluke. 2011 might also not credible. But at least they didn´t have a negative Pt/Run differential like the Giants. Anyway, the Cards fall two lucky championships short of the NYG with their skinny playcallers and sometimes obscure HC´s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
We all agree on that. Can’t call him a big game choke, because he has played very well in some playoff games—for the most part in their SB run, and in the two playoff games leading up to the SB loss vs. NO. But he has been poor in many others. Indy lost many playoff games in which they were favorites, and it was almost always because of the offense.
Ok, may that will convince you: (SB-Run in 2006)
30/38 268 1/3 vs. KC (the non existent RS-Run-D had to help out here !!!)
15/30 170 0/2 vs. BAL (not only the "Stat-Line" looks aweful, it actually was. PM missing open WR by throwing off target OOB; terrible INT´s)
27/47 349 1 /1 vs. NE (ugly first half with the "super" INT; underthrown, wobbling like a duck. Anyway, he was out of reach at HT, so w/o nervousness he came back in the 2nd half with the "it don´t matter anyway" approach)
25/38 247 1/1 vs. CHI (other than the wide open long TD to Wayne (?) there was no impact by PM in that game. It´s still beyond me how he earned the MVP award)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Has anyone else noticed how similar the Niners and Seahawks are?
Yes. It´s all calculated in my pick.
May you join this week?

Last edited by FoxxyBrown1111; 12-19-12 at 02:28.
Reply With Quote
  #1962  
Old 12-19-12, 03:11
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,867
Default

An interesting read:
In the first 3 games, two of the greatest QBs ever were involved, in the 3rd one of the best backup QBS of nowadays (next to Billy Volek).

... and the true Power-Rankings by ANS (no surprises here compared to last week):
1 DEN
2 SF
3 SEA
4 CAR
5 HOU
6 ATL
7 NE
8 WAS
9 GB
10 NYG
11 STL
12 CIN
13 PIT
14 DET
15 NO
16 DAL
17 CHI
18 MIA
19 NYJ
20 TB
21 BAL
22 BUF
23 CLE
24 SD
25 IND
26 PHI
27 MIN
28 OAK
29 TEN
30 ARI
31 KC
32 JAC

Last edited by FoxxyBrown1111; 12-19-12 at 03:24.
Reply With Quote
  #1963  
Old 12-19-12, 03:50
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Has anyone else noticed how similar the Niners and Seahawks are? Take a look at these numbers:

OFFENSE

Pts/G Rank Yds/G Rank Pass Rank Rush Rank
SF 25.5 8 361.6 11 198.9 26 162.9 2
SE 25.1 11 350.1 16 189.4 27 160.7 3

DEFENSE

Pts/G Rank Yds/G Rank Pass Rank Rush Rank
SF 15.6 1 293.0 2 201.9 5 91.1 3
SE 15.6 2 303.9 3 197.6 3 106.3 10

Both teams have excellent defenses, a strong running game, and young, highly mobile QBs in their first year as starters. SF has the better record, and is slightly better in most stats, largely because Seattle struggled offensively early in the season, as Russell Wilson gradually found his way. But at this moment in time, it’s hard to see much of a difference between the two teams. I think SF’s defense is a little better, particularly with the key injuries in the secondary for Seattle, and Kaepernick may have better long term potential than Wilson. But it looks like the NFC West in future years is going to be a real war, with maybe one of the best teams in the NFL having to settle for wild card. Seattle will almost certainly have to settle for WC this year, and I would have to call them the best WC in the playoffs, without even being certain who the others are.
Nice post. But no, I did not notice how statistically similar SF & SEA are. I should have. Speaking of War, one war is going to be in the trenches this Sunday night when the two meet in Seattle. The first time these two met earlier this season, it was a downright fist fight in the trenches. In the end SF kind of wore SEA down. I expect more of the same.
Reply With Quote
  #1964  
Old 12-19-12, 06:48
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,537
Default

AP Power Rankings up. Den, SF, NE, Atl, Hou, GB, Sea, Wash, NYG.

If the goal in the NFL is to win games, and get to and win the SB, those ANS power rankings are foo-foo.

SF-Seattle. I need to think about this one. It's going to be close, and physical. Last week's ESPN experts, only Wickersham (best overall record) picked SF over NE. I'm curious what he has to say this week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
...it looks like the NFC West in future years is going to be a real war, with maybe one of the best teams in the NFL having to settle for wild card.
The startling thing is that St. Louis actually has some talent and are on the up as well. I don't know how far Jeff Fisher can take them. He's too conservative for my take, but he runs a very organized team, and puts excellent defenses and special teams on the field almost every year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu View Post
Mercifully the Jets have announced Greg McElroy as the starting QB next week, which should spare Sanchez further humiliation.
The real elephant in the room now is that unless McElroy completely bombs out, Mark is done for the season, and with $8.5m guaranteed next year, what in the heck are the Jets going to do? If Rex isn't fired, I'll be shocked. The entire Jets organization looks like it needs a total reboot. But with Sanchez guaranteed contract, they're somewhat hosed. The other problem is that statistically, Sanchez is at the bottom of the QB ratings in several categories. I'd feel sorry for him, as I do think the Jets didn't develop or teach him well, and he's likely damaged. But he's got a lot of cash to fall on.

As to McElroy he will bring a few things that young, backup QB's bring. He's going to have a fresh approach which, if he can stay positive, may lend a psychological spark to the offense, and perhaps even bleed over to the defense and special teams. We see some of this with RGIII, and saw a lot of it last year with Tebow in Denver. But Tim simply doesn't have the passing talent to stick around in this league as a starter. McElroy can also help the Jets because he hasn't played much at all, so other teams are not adjusted to his mannerisms and playing quirks. I also expect the Jets to cut the playbook in half for him, and we'll see a lot of running. The RB's know this, and will plan and step-up accordingly. I haven't seen McElroy play more than anyone else, though I do remember him in college. He seems to be mostly a pocket passer who can move around, and has a nice touch on the ball. I'm not sure on his vision of the field for 2nd, 3rd receivers (where Sanchez fails miserably), or deep accuracy. But we'll soon find out.
Reply With Quote
  #1965  
Old 12-19-12, 07:10
Oldman Oldman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Great Pacific NW
Posts: 4,469
Default

Seahawks are fun to watch on both sides of the ball. San Francisco had a good time with Giselle's semi-mobile husband but this game looks like it could go Seattle's way. I don't think any other NFL team wants to play either of them right now.
Reply With Quote
  #1966  
Old 12-19-12, 13:21
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
[URL="http://pro32.ap.org/poll"]If the goal in the NFL is to win games, and get to and win the SB, those ANS power rankings are foo-foo.
ANS might have a pretty good history, but I can't weigh in on that. What I can weigh in on is THOSE ANS power rankings I agree are foo foo. And for the right reason you gave.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman View Post
Seahawks are fun to watch on both sides of the ball. San Francisco had a good time with Giselle's semi-mobile husband but this game looks like it could go Seattle's way. I don't think any other NFL team wants to play either of them right now.
Seattle has morphed since the last time SEA & SF met, as they have opened up the play book a little more for SEA QB Wilson. A little bit the same with Kaep for SF. Prediction experts (e.g. espn etc) be da**ed. I've got my blinders on for this week's SEA-SF tilt. I too give SEA the edge. Too bad I can't be there. I had to settle for the Rams.
ps - I like that semi mobile husband reference. LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #1967  
Old 12-19-12, 13:37
on3m@n@rmy's Avatar
on3m@n@rmy on3m@n@rmy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxxyBrown1111 View Post
Here is a very good article about the life of backup QBS.
http://info4students.com/time-for-a-...ackup-qb-plan/

I was searching for an older article from nfl.com, but i "only" found the above linked one, which also describes it perfectly...

I canīt praise enough the quality of play of backup QBS...
The guys at PFR.com came up with the "1-win-above-replacements" for starting QBS.
I do my own reasearch now, since they did "cherry picking" (only counting teams above .500, etc.) which misleads the results towards the starters.
I am onto something (it looks so far)... there is almost no difference in (pass-)play efficiency and W-L record, no matter if the starter plays or not. Thatīs amazing, given the facts described in the linked article.

Conclusion: "Star"-QBīs are even more overrated than I ever thought (and i thought i was going the farthest to "discredit" the so called superstars).
I too praise backup QBs, at least some of them, especially ones we have seen recently. As the article you posted points out, it is tough when they don't get reps in practice. Some teams the backup QB may get 10 to 20% reps. But every HC and especially every backup QB will tell you they have to be game ready in spite of their situation as backup. How they do that without getting physical reps in practice is MENTAL reps in practice (going through same mental progressions as the starter QB, but from sideline) when the starter is out there practicing. But it is a bit tougher from the sideline when you see the field from different perspective, or don't see all the field. And film study.

I don't know about star QBs being overrated though. When compiling those stats that seem to tell us there is no difference between starter and backup, we have to be careful about the situation that allowed those stats to build for the backups. Primarily factors like 1) how many reps did they get that week, 2)what was the situation that called for their insertion into the lineup, 3) who game planned. A guy like Captain Kirk (Cousins) started for WASH and took all the reps in practice that week. So from that standpoint he was game ready. Then HC Shanahan game planned knowing what Kirk can and cannot do compared to RG3. With good talent around him, Kirk BETTER perform as expected. And he did. Flip side... Matt Flynn vs Arizona played the last quarter after the game was done, and put up some good numbers, but SEA Oline had control, ARI was beaten down by that point, and there's only certain things SEA needed Flynn to do. Point... situation will play a role in the outcome of the stats... not necessarily that the starters are overrated.
Reply With Quote
  #1968  
Old 12-19-12, 15:07
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
If the goal in the NFL is to win games, and get to and win the SB, those ANS power rankings are foo-foo.
So let me ask you: For what Power Rankings then?
Just look at the W-L record and you have them. No need for Prisco (CBS), AP, BR or whoever to write some foo-foo stuff to each teams power rank.
We all can read standings...

The purpose of those rankings is to list teams by their efficiency.
BTW, if Vegas (a strictly money oriented business) would make the lines by the W-L record only, they soon would be out of business. I think that´s abvious...

Seriously:
What Brian does is trying to model the predictivity of teams future outcomes like the next game day. He includes heavily passing efficieny (Y/PP) which have the best correlation for future outcomes. He also includes (to a lesser extend) run sucsess rates, penalty rates, and a little turnover rates (b/c they are mostly random). Actually it means he tries to eliminate the "luck" factor (as we discussed lenghtly last year, studies show that approx. 50% of game outcomes are decided by luck).
And he had great sucsess: Calling the GB SB-Run & the ATL collapse of two years ago, he had the NYG on 4th last year (nobody else had, literally), called the CAR wins over ATL & SD... That were just the biggest calls. Overall he´s very good, just a little behind Vegas over the last 5 seasons.
Where he failes (& he says that too) is that he doesn´t include injuries (which are OTOH overrated. One Vegas oddsmaker was quoted in the Moldea book "I only change lines when injuries hit teams in a cluster, single injuries have no i mpact").
Another weakness is that he doesn´t include coaches play-calling. Even tough he found out that Belicheat wins about 2 more games per season than expected since being HC of NE, and that Norv the Smurf wins around 2 games less per season than expected...

Last edited by FoxxyBrown1111; 12-19-12 at 15:39.
Reply With Quote
  #1969  
Old 12-19-12, 15:59
FoxxyBrown1111's Avatar
FoxxyBrown1111 FoxxyBrown1111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by on3m@n@rmy View Post
I too praise backup QBs, at least some of them, especially ones we have seen recently. As the article you posted points out, it is tough when they don't get reps in practice. Some teams the backup QB may get 10 to 20% reps. But every HC and especially every backup QB will tell you they have to be game ready in spite of their situation as backup. How they do that without getting physical reps in practice is MENTAL reps in practice (going through same mental progressions as the starter QB, but from sideline) when the starter is out there practicing. But it is a bit tougher from the sideline when you see the field from different perspective, or don't see all the field. And film study.

I don't know about star QBs being overrated though. When compiling those stats that seem to tell us there is no difference between starter and backup, we have to be careful about the situation that allowed those stats to build for the backups. Primarily factors like 1) how many reps did they get that week, 2)what was the situation that called for their insertion into the lineup, 3) who game planned. A guy like Captain Kirk (Cousins) started for WASH and took all the reps in practice that week. So from that standpoint he was game ready. Then HC Shanahan game planned knowing what Kirk can and cannot do compared to RG3. With good talent around him, Kirk BETTER perform as expected. And he did. Flip side... Matt Flynn vs Arizona played the last quarter after the game was done, and put up some good numbers, but SEA Oline had control, ARI was beaten down by that point, and there's only certain things SEA needed Flynn to do. Point... situation will play a role in the outcome of the stats... not necessarily that the starters are overrated.
To go trou the motions mentally isnīt enough. Itīs not even close. Itīs like i practise potting balls (in billards) only mentally, or thinking of how i (had to) pitch my curveball. It just donīt cut it. It canīt work.
... Practise makes perfect!
Anyway, itīs even worse: Those backup QBS get thrown stone cold into heavy action of real ball games after not seeing real action since the pre season... Itīs a wonder that they survive!

I was thinking about situation too. But a little different: Did the backup come in as a fresh college QB who replaced an old aging ineffective Starter. Or did a experienced former starter just replace an injured starting QB?
I think iīll study the numbers in summer precisely*; now i just go for the raw numbers to have a starting point...

* Since i am curious to know about how much a true starting QB is really worth. My early guess is around 0,5 extra wins per season and a little bit higher Y/PP than the replacements, but certainly not 15 Mio Dollar a year when the backup makes the minimum...
Reply With Quote
  #1970  
Old 12-19-12, 17:02
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxxyBrown1111 View Post
So let me ask you: For what Power Rankings then?
Teams most likely to win in the weeks coming, factored against the teams they are playing, and their chances of winning through to the Superbowl.

This is why I wouldn't have Carolina at #4. Sure, they beat Atlanta. And the hapless Chargers. And they'll likely beat the pathetic Raiders and maybe the imploding Saints. Yes, they have a talented roster. But they're going to finish the season 7-9 if they win out. They lost to Tampa Bay twice, and to Kansas City three weeks ago. Kansas City!

The ANS rankings have NE at 7, below Carolina and Houston, who they completely demolished.

I think you're too stat-fixated for me Foxxy.

Moving on from that and to backup Quarterbacks. Talk today that Alex Smith could actually win both the passing title for QB rating, and completion percentage. He just needs to throw another seven passes to qualify. Wouldn't that be peculiar if they play him some of week 17 against Arizona and he does it?

Talk about either Smith or Michael Vick going to the Jets next year. I think Vick would be more fitting, especially if Rex is still there. That would be a perfect fit. Plus, let's pretend Tebow is still there. Rex, Vick and Tim on the same team. Comedy gold. But some team will still think that Vick is the future of football and hire him because of that (mis)perception. They will then lose many games.

Smith on the other hand may be able to pick and choose between a few teams. Not the way Manning did, but perhaps better than the way Matt Flynn did. He'll get some offers, and go where he thinks he has the best chance of playing, and winning.

I can only wonder where Sanchez will be sucking his millions from.

Speaking over overpaid players, wonder where Chris Johnson is going to end up. A few flashy runs, barely over 1,000 yards, and a boat anchor to Tennessee's future with Jake Locker.
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 08:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.