Seahawks had an absolute blast against a great defense making every adjustment necessary to "manage" a win. I've always been an Earl Campbell fan but Marshawn put the total shiver into a stiff arm for his longest run.
Also, I wonder if Cromartie ever found his jock?
Also, I wonder if Cromartie ever found his jock?
Needed to bring this quote back:
Yes I know. And I hope you don´t take my rants against the Seahawks too serious. It´s just like I said: Can´t stand "half-teams" winning SBs. But nothing against their fans. Last night some of them were watching with us the Cowboys-Giants game. You could imagine that I made a share of jokes about the Seahawks when the final Rams-SEA score was anounced. I celebrated that one quite a while, and then some more. They took it easy...
I'm sure they took this one easy as well. But you probably didn't watch the game, did you?
Yes I know. And I hope you don´t take my rants against the Seahawks too serious. It´s just like I said: Can´t stand "half-teams" winning SBs. But nothing against their fans. Last night some of them were watching with us the Cowboys-Giants game. You could imagine that I made a share of jokes about the Seahawks when the final Rams-SEA score was anounced. I celebrated that one quite a while, and then some more. They took it easy...
I'm sure they took this one easy as well. But you probably didn't watch the game, did you?
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Boy, have the 49ers and Eagles, two teams thought to be strong SB contenders at the beginning of the season, gone down the tubes. The 49ers have lost four straight, and have to beat AZ just to finish at .500. They blew a 21 point half-time lead vs. SD, had a chance to ice the game late in the 4th quarter with a KO return into SD territory, couldn’t move the ball, couldn’t stop the Chargers from going the length of the field to tie the game.
The Eagles’ losses to SE and DAL weren’t that shocking, but Washington? I guess like the 49ers, their consolation is that even if they had won that game, they probably weren’t going to the postseason.
Another year with an interesting contrast between the AFC and the NFC. In the AFC, three of the four divisions have been settled, but the WCs have not, with six teams having a shot, including three in the AFC North, one of which will win the division title. So six teams contending for three playoff spots.
In the NFC, none of the divisions has been won yet except the NFC East, but all the playoff teams have been determined except the winner of the NFC South. So two teams contending for one playoff spot.
And in a great scheduling outcome, three of the four division titles remaining to be determined will be settled by head-to-head matchups in the final week of the contending teams, AFC North, NFC North, and NFC South.
The winner of the NFC South will have a losing record, while both of the NFC wild cards (one of which will play the NFC South winner on the road) will win at least 11 games, and one of them may win 12 games (AZ). If that happens, 12-4 AZ will play at 7 win CA or ATL (or possibly even 6 win CA if CA-ATL ends in a tie), and if AZ loses—and given its QB situation, and the way they were blown out by SE, that looks very possible (they lost at ATL earlier in the season, too)--the calls for changing the playoff format will be sure to grow louder. But for sure, an NFC team with at least 11 wins will be playing on the road vs. a team with no more than 7 wins.
Survival: CIN. They’re on the road against a Steeler team that has looked pretty good recently. Not an easy game to pick, since the division title is on the line, but I don’t have a lot of other choices at this point.
Past picks: MIA*, NYJ, MIN, TE, BUF*, OAK, StL*, BAL, JAX, CHI, TB*, WASH, ATL*, CAR*, SF, AZ
Elimination: I’m down to NE, DEN and GB. I have to eliminate Manning and co. at this point, though I really think they have a decent shot at getting back to the SB. And of course SE has to be considered the SB favorite at this point. Their defense has been dominating, though except for Philly, they've played mostly weak offenses recently, and their offense has looked good to great against some strong defenses.
The Eagles’ losses to SE and DAL weren’t that shocking, but Washington? I guess like the 49ers, their consolation is that even if they had won that game, they probably weren’t going to the postseason.
Another year with an interesting contrast between the AFC and the NFC. In the AFC, three of the four divisions have been settled, but the WCs have not, with six teams having a shot, including three in the AFC North, one of which will win the division title. So six teams contending for three playoff spots.
In the NFC, none of the divisions has been won yet except the NFC East, but all the playoff teams have been determined except the winner of the NFC South. So two teams contending for one playoff spot.
And in a great scheduling outcome, three of the four division titles remaining to be determined will be settled by head-to-head matchups in the final week of the contending teams, AFC North, NFC North, and NFC South.
The winner of the NFC South will have a losing record, while both of the NFC wild cards (one of which will play the NFC South winner on the road) will win at least 11 games, and one of them may win 12 games (AZ). If that happens, 12-4 AZ will play at 7 win CA or ATL (or possibly even 6 win CA if CA-ATL ends in a tie), and if AZ loses—and given its QB situation, and the way they were blown out by SE, that looks very possible (they lost at ATL earlier in the season, too)--the calls for changing the playoff format will be sure to grow louder. But for sure, an NFC team with at least 11 wins will be playing on the road vs. a team with no more than 7 wins.
Survival: CIN. They’re on the road against a Steeler team that has looked pretty good recently. Not an easy game to pick, since the division title is on the line, but I don’t have a lot of other choices at this point.
Past picks: MIA*, NYJ, MIN, TE, BUF*, OAK, StL*, BAL, JAX, CHI, TB*, WASH, ATL*, CAR*, SF, AZ
Elimination: I’m down to NE, DEN and GB. I have to eliminate Manning and co. at this point, though I really think they have a decent shot at getting back to the SB. And of course SE has to be considered the SB favorite at this point. Their defense has been dominating, though except for Philly, they've played mostly weak offenses recently, and their offense has looked good to great against some strong defenses.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 59
- 22,580
Seeding is going to be so crap.
Cowboys the 3rd seed are supposed to get the "advantage" of playing the weaker team but since all that means is they get the lower seed rather than the weaker team, what will happen is that Arizona, which hold a tie breaker over Detroit will get the 5th seed and Detroit the 6th and Cowboys will have to play the very strong team instead of the very weak one, while the joke of an NFC South team continues to ride idiotic rules to not just a well undeserved HFA but one of the easiest first rounds one can think of.
In that side of the draw two of the weakest playoff teams in recent NFL history -an Arizona team on a 3rd string qb 3rd string running back and 3 of their 4 best defensive players out and a 7 win NFC South team will fight it out for the right to face a fully healthy fully rested Seahawks team in Seattle.
Seahawks are practically in the NFC Championship game already. There I think GB has the best chance of challenging them because Rodgers can get hot though Dallas also can win. Detroit have had so many scrapes against weak teams that involved a lot of luck, to get them to the 11 wins that I don't think they'll survive the playoffs.
Cowboys the 3rd seed are supposed to get the "advantage" of playing the weaker team but since all that means is they get the lower seed rather than the weaker team, what will happen is that Arizona, which hold a tie breaker over Detroit will get the 5th seed and Detroit the 6th and Cowboys will have to play the very strong team instead of the very weak one, while the joke of an NFC South team continues to ride idiotic rules to not just a well undeserved HFA but one of the easiest first rounds one can think of.
In that side of the draw two of the weakest playoff teams in recent NFL history -an Arizona team on a 3rd string qb 3rd string running back and 3 of their 4 best defensive players out and a 7 win NFC South team will fight it out for the right to face a fully healthy fully rested Seahawks team in Seattle.
Seahawks are practically in the NFC Championship game already. There I think GB has the best chance of challenging them because Rodgers can get hot though Dallas also can win. Detroit have had so many scrapes against weak teams that involved a lot of luck, to get them to the 11 wins that I don't think they'll survive the playoffs.
- Jul 16, 2011
- 1,561
- 10
- 10,510
That run by the beast was just crazy. As for the Cardinals being "found out", I meant that we'll find out that they've been running on exhaust fumes for the last few weeks. When at full strength, they are a solid team. Seattle started out slowy, but really rolled at the end.
As for the Dallas-Indy game, the real question was what Indy team was going to turn up. The result was much more important to Dallas. After a harsh penalty on the Indy defense and a dropped catch on a fake punt, it was 14-0 after 10 minutes and the game was essentially over.
As for the Dallas-Indy game, the real question was what Indy team was going to turn up. The result was much more important to Dallas. After a harsh penalty on the Indy defense and a dropped catch on a fake punt, it was 14-0 after 10 minutes and the game was essentially over.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,524
- 1,316
- 25,680
Good posts.
We knew Seattle was good, but their offense looked very impressive. Russell Wilson is about as good as any QB in the NFL right now. He made plays with his legs, and his arm, across the entire field. While the defense is back to being ranked first in points, yards and YP/P, and playing mistake free overall as a team. They're scary good right now.
The way I see the playoffs is this, in the NFC:
Detroit @ Dallas - This could go either way.
Arizona @ Atlanta or Carolina - What a shame, as we've discussed.
Winners travel to Seattle and Green Bay. There is an outside chance Dallas could go into Green Bay, or even Seattle and upset them. The Cowboys will be underdogs, and not have the expectations they often do. They are excellent on the road. They have a great OL and can run and grind out plays. Their defense is sketchy, but have good days. Imagine a few bounces, a late turnover...
I agree with Hitch on Detroit. They look more like a 10-6 team. Even this week they barely beat Chicago with Cutler benched. Arizona is out of cards (sorry, bad pun), and there is no way Atlanta or Carolina even belong in the playoffs.
The AFC is harder to speculate, as there are more options. I'm going to guess this:
Baltimore goes to Pittsburgh. Both of these teams are very Jeckel/Hyde. Both have plenty of playoff experience however.
San Diego goes to Indianapolis. This could be a shoot out, and one team could ride a hot game into the divisional game.
I actually think any of these teams could upset either New England or Denver. I still think one of these two will lose that first playoff game. Both teams put together very impressive drives, but also have long stretches where they just look average on both sides of the ball. That's a recipe for an upset to me.
We knew Seattle was good, but their offense looked very impressive. Russell Wilson is about as good as any QB in the NFL right now. He made plays with his legs, and his arm, across the entire field. While the defense is back to being ranked first in points, yards and YP/P, and playing mistake free overall as a team. They're scary good right now.
The way I see the playoffs is this, in the NFC:
Detroit @ Dallas - This could go either way.
Arizona @ Atlanta or Carolina - What a shame, as we've discussed.
Winners travel to Seattle and Green Bay. There is an outside chance Dallas could go into Green Bay, or even Seattle and upset them. The Cowboys will be underdogs, and not have the expectations they often do. They are excellent on the road. They have a great OL and can run and grind out plays. Their defense is sketchy, but have good days. Imagine a few bounces, a late turnover...
I agree with Hitch on Detroit. They look more like a 10-6 team. Even this week they barely beat Chicago with Cutler benched. Arizona is out of cards (sorry, bad pun), and there is no way Atlanta or Carolina even belong in the playoffs.
The AFC is harder to speculate, as there are more options. I'm going to guess this:
Baltimore goes to Pittsburgh. Both of these teams are very Jeckel/Hyde. Both have plenty of playoff experience however.
San Diego goes to Indianapolis. This could be a shoot out, and one team could ride a hot game into the divisional game.
I actually think any of these teams could upset either New England or Denver. I still think one of these two will lose that first playoff game. Both teams put together very impressive drives, but also have long stretches where they just look average on both sides of the ball. That's a recipe for an upset to me.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Alpe-
Valid observation for Dallas in Green Bay but not likely in Seattle. The same reason they have a shot in Green Bay is the same reason I think Atlanta could shock some folks; they played well in a late run at Cold Green Bay. Matt Ryan is hitting his receivers well. I like Atlanta's chances better against Denver for no particular reason.
- Jun 17, 2010
- 5,139
- 237
- 17,880
@MoneyLynch runnin dirty!!! Couples of things I liked most about that Crazy run by Lynch:
1. ML dispatched two defenders at the same moment, vs just one at a time in the Beastquake run. All, that with a bad back and sick. Nothing a few Skittles can't fix (yes, he did get his fix of Skittles before entering the game).
2. How about Ricardo Lockette hustling down there like a mad man to help along the sideline, and again near the endzone? Bravo.
3. Offensive Line set up that run. Backup LT Bailey and starting LG Carpenter collapsed the defensive line, which attacked gaps away from the play making it easier for the SEA OL. But the BEST block of that play... TE Luke Willson sealing the Cards RDT to create the other side of the lane for Lynch.
But that play at the line was not all glory for SEA. ARI LB #56 failed, ummm... no, screwed up big time by not filling the gap to meet pulling RG Sweezy. Meaning Sweezy really did not have to block anyone.
I may eat my words later, but don't let the whopping DAL victory over the 25th ranked Philly defense on total yards allowed, and 23rd in points/game allowed create impulsiveness to bet your wad on the Boys.
Which brings me to Philly HC Chip Kelly. When at Oregon, the Ducks put a ton of points on the board and the offense ran up and down the field. But often the Duck defense allowed a lot of yards and points as well. It will be interesting to see in the next few years if Kelly has what it takes at the NFL level to put together a defense to match the Iggles 4th ranked offense (total yards).
Playoff seeding is what it is. Agreed, not always fair. But the 'not fair' tag is something fans are concerned about more than players are. Any team wanting to get to the SB is going to have to play against better teams sometime anyway. No excuses. Strive for the higher seed, yes. But players just have, and must have, the attitude 'don't care who we play or where we play'.
1. ML dispatched two defenders at the same moment, vs just one at a time in the Beastquake run. All, that with a bad back and sick. Nothing a few Skittles can't fix (yes, he did get his fix of Skittles before entering the game).
2. How about Ricardo Lockette hustling down there like a mad man to help along the sideline, and again near the endzone? Bravo.
3. Offensive Line set up that run. Backup LT Bailey and starting LG Carpenter collapsed the defensive line, which attacked gaps away from the play making it easier for the SEA OL. But the BEST block of that play... TE Luke Willson sealing the Cards RDT to create the other side of the lane for Lynch.
But that play at the line was not all glory for SEA. ARI LB #56 failed, ummm... no, screwed up big time by not filling the gap to meet pulling RG Sweezy. Meaning Sweezy really did not have to block anyone.
I may eat my words later, but don't let the whopping DAL victory over the 25th ranked Philly defense on total yards allowed, and 23rd in points/game allowed create impulsiveness to bet your wad on the Boys.
Which brings me to Philly HC Chip Kelly. When at Oregon, the Ducks put a ton of points on the board and the offense ran up and down the field. But often the Duck defense allowed a lot of yards and points as well. It will be interesting to see in the next few years if Kelly has what it takes at the NFL level to put together a defense to match the Iggles 4th ranked offense (total yards).
Playoff seeding is what it is. Agreed, not always fair. But the 'not fair' tag is something fans are concerned about more than players are. Any team wanting to get to the SB is going to have to play against better teams sometime anyway. No excuses. Strive for the higher seed, yes. But players just have, and must have, the attitude 'don't care who we play or where we play'.
Oldman said:
After seeing the Denver/Cincy game tonight I know where that feeling came from...
John Elway spent a lot of money on defense to get what played tonight. AFC does appear to be NE's for the taking.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,524
- 1,316
- 25,680
Atlanta-Denver Super Bowl? That would be something!Oldman said:
I do agree the Falcons could take out either Detroit or Arizona though. At home, in that awful dome, it's possible.
Twice I said I was certain that Denver would win last night. Shows you what I know. But I also said for some time I could see the Broncos eliminated in their first playoff game. I can still see that. But even if they get past that, the team we saw last night was no Super Bowl contender. Then again, the Patriots squeezed out a win on Sunday over the lowly Jets by one point, and Brady definitely had an off day. So anything can happen.
I do agree that it's going to be very difficult for any team to go into Seattle and win. Atlanta, Detroit, Arizona, Carolina, no way. Dallas or Green Bay do have the tools. But I'd still favor Seattle. Recall that Dallas beat Seattle in week 6 this season, in Seattle.
A big problem every team has playing Seattle is that they'll have to come up with a plan on offense that pounds the ball, and has some extremely efficient throws on offense, especially down the field. This way they can put the needed points on the board to compete. But the double whammy is that Seattle's offense is really coming together right now. This is no Trent Dilfer lead Ravens team.
I predict Jay Cutler will have a great game against Minnesota. As a result the Bears will decide against cutting/trading him. He comes back with the Bears next year and sucks all over again.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Seattle beat Green Bay in SEA, but that seems as long ago as week 6 and as irrelevant as the Dallas loss. What they've done to the league the last 6 games pretty much sums up the momentum aspect...they have it. Despite NE barely beating the Jets: that was an allowable lethargic game but they can coast into the playoffs now. They should be fit and rested.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,524
- 1,316
- 25,680
No kidding on that one. It means Brady plays maybe a quarter or half against Buffalo. Gronk mostly sits. Lots of guys sit. Lots of other guys get needed playing time. I guess if Brady was to have an off game, this last week was a good week to do so.
Yeah, those early season games with Seattle against GB and Dallas mean nothing at this point.
Prediction for a week from today: John Harbaugh will be out of SF. He'll either be traded to a team willing to give up a draft pick and cash for him, or the 49ers will just fire him. They do that, he ends up at the University of Michigan as their HC, or in Oakland, which I feel the 49ers would like to avoid.
I hinted at this earlier, but can see it more now. Mike Shanahan apparently wants back in the NFL as a HC. But on a team that can win soon. Both jobs in the bay area are very likely to be open, but one place where I can see Shanahan landing is actually Chicago. He's from Illinois, that team has talent, but is a mess. And a hyper-organizer, stoic, somewhat disciplinarian coach like Shanahan could be just what Cutler and crew need most. Recall he drafted Jay Cutler, and recently told ESPN he still saw him as a franchise QB. But that may be a smoke screen.
Curious where the soon to be fired Rex Ryan ends up as a DC. What about in Chicago with Shanahan as HC? That would be interesting.
Yeah, those early season games with Seattle against GB and Dallas mean nothing at this point.
Prediction for a week from today: John Harbaugh will be out of SF. He'll either be traded to a team willing to give up a draft pick and cash for him, or the 49ers will just fire him. They do that, he ends up at the University of Michigan as their HC, or in Oakland, which I feel the 49ers would like to avoid.
I hinted at this earlier, but can see it more now. Mike Shanahan apparently wants back in the NFL as a HC. But on a team that can win soon. Both jobs in the bay area are very likely to be open, but one place where I can see Shanahan landing is actually Chicago. He's from Illinois, that team has talent, but is a mess. And a hyper-organizer, stoic, somewhat disciplinarian coach like Shanahan could be just what Cutler and crew need most. Recall he drafted Jay Cutler, and recently told ESPN he still saw him as a franchise QB. But that may be a smoke screen.
Curious where the soon to be fired Rex Ryan ends up as a DC. What about in Chicago with Shanahan as HC? That would be interesting.
- Jul 13, 2010
- 623
- 1
- 9,985
For Elimination Football® this week:
Only pick 1 this week:
with a heavy heart I'm going to pick the Packers, as I feel they will struggle to beat Seattle in Seattle in the championship game*
*that's how it works out yeah?
To add to my list:
NYG / Washington / NYJ / Dallas /Jacksonville / Minnesota / St Louis / Oakland / Miami / Tampa Bay / Atlanta / Pittsburgh / Cleveland / Cincinnati / Carolina / Indianapolis / Tennessee / Chicago / Houston / Detroit / Buffalo / San Francisco / New Orleans / Philadelphia / Kansas City / Arizona / Baltimore / San Diego / Denver
That leaves me with:
Seahawks / Patriots
For Reverse Survival Football™ (Loser Bowl):
Browns - they've just signed another QB - Tyler Thigpen, it's probably not a good sign.
My current score: 5
Previous highest score: 8
Teams used: Titans*, Chargers*, Washington, Jacksonville, Jets(0), Raiders, 49ers, Rams, Buccaneers, Bears, Texans*, Lions, Panthers, Bills, Dolphins, Cardinals
Only pick 1 this week:
with a heavy heart I'm going to pick the Packers, as I feel they will struggle to beat Seattle in Seattle in the championship game*
*that's how it works out yeah?
To add to my list:
NYG / Washington / NYJ / Dallas /Jacksonville / Minnesota / St Louis / Oakland / Miami / Tampa Bay / Atlanta / Pittsburgh / Cleveland / Cincinnati / Carolina / Indianapolis / Tennessee / Chicago / Houston / Detroit / Buffalo / San Francisco / New Orleans / Philadelphia / Kansas City / Arizona / Baltimore / San Diego / Denver
That leaves me with:
Seahawks / Patriots
For Reverse Survival Football™ (Loser Bowl):
Browns - they've just signed another QB - Tyler Thigpen, it's probably not a good sign.
My current score: 5
Previous highest score: 8
Teams used: Titans*, Chargers*, Washington, Jacksonville, Jets(0), Raiders, 49ers, Rams, Buccaneers, Bears, Texans*, Lions, Panthers, Bills, Dolphins, Cardinals
Didn't Cutler lead to Shanahan getting fired? I can't remember how it went down, but it didn't end well. At this point, I don't think anyone can fix Cutler. He simply doesn't have the temperament to be consistently successful in the NFL. I can't believe that the Bears didn't see that last year. Now he's an enormous albatross around their neck. Still I'm sticking with my pick that Cutler has a big game against Minnesota (relatively speaking of course).Alpe d'Huez said:
As to the other two teams in the NFC North, Green Bay is going to roll over Detroit. Detroit's offense sucks.
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
Here’s a very interesting stat for Russell Wilson. He’s fumbled nine times this season. That’s quite a bit, 5th highest among QBs, but completely understandable because he carries the ball so much. He leads all QBs in rushing yards, and only Kaepernick, who is second, and Newton, who is third, have more than half as many carries as Wilson.
But what’s suprising is that Wilson has not lost any fumbles at all. Newton has also fumbled nine times, and has lost five. Kaepernick has fumbled eight times and also lost five. The only other qualified QBs who have not lost a fumble are Flacco, Bridgewater, and Stanton, and the latter, of course, has missed much of the season. None of these QBs has fumbled more than three times.
We can calculate a fumble %, as the number of fumbles divided by the sum of rushes + sacks:
Wilson (151) 6.0%
Kaepernick (154; leads NFL in sacks) 5.2%
Newton (134) 6.7%
So these three QBs all fumble at roughly the same rate per time they are tackled with the ball. (As an aside, though at least two of Kaep's lost fumbles played a critical role in key 49er losses, he takes care of the ball about as well as most other QBs, given how often he's tackled). For further comparison, Cutler is tied with Luck in fumbles (12) and fumbles lost (6), but Josh McCown has the highest fumble rate, 18.9%. I think Dalton and Bridgewater have the lowest, 4.0 and 3.9%, respectively.
The question is, how much of this is chance? A lot of it, no doubt, would need to see more data over more seasons. But is not losing a fumble on nine chances due just to luck? Qualified NFL QBs have fumbled the ball 198 times, and lost the ball 75 times, about 38%. Round it to 40%. If by chance a QB loses a fumble 40% of the time, the odds are about 100:1 that he would fumble nine times without losing the ball. It may be chance that one QB among several dozen does this, but either Wilson has been very lucky, or something else is going on. FWIW, two other QBs have been almost as good as protecting the ball. Tannehill has lost just one fumble out of eight, and Rivers one of seven.
I don’t have fumble data just for sacks, but I suspect QBs cough it up more often then, given they are frequently blind-sided. If this is the case, it makes Wilson look even better, because only five QBs in the NFL have been sacked more than he has. Three of the five QBs who have been sacked more than Wilson have only lost the ball one time, including Tannehill, but given the relatively small sample size of sacks, it's hard to rule out chance.
Another way to get at this is to compare QBs with RBs, who of course don't get sacked or blind-sided. Not surprisingly, the latter are much better at holding on to the ball. No RB has fumbled more than five times, and I think the highest fumble % is Knile Davis, at 3.2%. So the most fumble-prone RB drops the ball less frequently than the most ball-protective QB. Only Murray has lost more than three fumbles—he’s five for five.
Qualified RBs have fumbled 122 times and lost the ball 84 times, or 68.9%. That's surprising, because that fairly substantial sample size indicates that RBs, though much less likely to drop the ball than a QB, are much more likely than a QB to turn it over when they do fumble. Why would that be? Are more of a QBs teammates likely to be around him when he gets tackled with the ball? In any case, if we round to 70%, the odds of losing the ball on all five fumbles is about one is six, easily explainable by chance.
Getting back to Wilson, only 14 RBs have rushed for more yards than he has. Only two of them, LeVeon Bell of the Steelers, and Alfred Morris of Washington, have not lost a fumble. So you have a QB who’s in the top 10 in QB efficiency, has rushed for more yards than the no. 1 RB on about half the teams in the NFL, and has never lost the ball.
Add Lynch (third in rushing yards with only two fumbles and one lost), and no wonder Seattle's offense is doing fine.
Added: Here's a long article on Brady. The theme is one all of us in the Clinic are familiar with. Brady in his late 30s is having one of the best years of his life because of hard work and attention to details. The term marginal gains is not used, but it probably could be.
Worked for Horner.
But what’s suprising is that Wilson has not lost any fumbles at all. Newton has also fumbled nine times, and has lost five. Kaepernick has fumbled eight times and also lost five. The only other qualified QBs who have not lost a fumble are Flacco, Bridgewater, and Stanton, and the latter, of course, has missed much of the season. None of these QBs has fumbled more than three times.
We can calculate a fumble %, as the number of fumbles divided by the sum of rushes + sacks:
Wilson (151) 6.0%
Kaepernick (154; leads NFL in sacks) 5.2%
Newton (134) 6.7%
So these three QBs all fumble at roughly the same rate per time they are tackled with the ball. (As an aside, though at least two of Kaep's lost fumbles played a critical role in key 49er losses, he takes care of the ball about as well as most other QBs, given how often he's tackled). For further comparison, Cutler is tied with Luck in fumbles (12) and fumbles lost (6), but Josh McCown has the highest fumble rate, 18.9%. I think Dalton and Bridgewater have the lowest, 4.0 and 3.9%, respectively.
The question is, how much of this is chance? A lot of it, no doubt, would need to see more data over more seasons. But is not losing a fumble on nine chances due just to luck? Qualified NFL QBs have fumbled the ball 198 times, and lost the ball 75 times, about 38%. Round it to 40%. If by chance a QB loses a fumble 40% of the time, the odds are about 100:1 that he would fumble nine times without losing the ball. It may be chance that one QB among several dozen does this, but either Wilson has been very lucky, or something else is going on. FWIW, two other QBs have been almost as good as protecting the ball. Tannehill has lost just one fumble out of eight, and Rivers one of seven.
I don’t have fumble data just for sacks, but I suspect QBs cough it up more often then, given they are frequently blind-sided. If this is the case, it makes Wilson look even better, because only five QBs in the NFL have been sacked more than he has. Three of the five QBs who have been sacked more than Wilson have only lost the ball one time, including Tannehill, but given the relatively small sample size of sacks, it's hard to rule out chance.
Another way to get at this is to compare QBs with RBs, who of course don't get sacked or blind-sided. Not surprisingly, the latter are much better at holding on to the ball. No RB has fumbled more than five times, and I think the highest fumble % is Knile Davis, at 3.2%. So the most fumble-prone RB drops the ball less frequently than the most ball-protective QB. Only Murray has lost more than three fumbles—he’s five for five.
Qualified RBs have fumbled 122 times and lost the ball 84 times, or 68.9%. That's surprising, because that fairly substantial sample size indicates that RBs, though much less likely to drop the ball than a QB, are much more likely than a QB to turn it over when they do fumble. Why would that be? Are more of a QBs teammates likely to be around him when he gets tackled with the ball? In any case, if we round to 70%, the odds of losing the ball on all five fumbles is about one is six, easily explainable by chance.
Getting back to Wilson, only 14 RBs have rushed for more yards than he has. Only two of them, LeVeon Bell of the Steelers, and Alfred Morris of Washington, have not lost a fumble. So you have a QB who’s in the top 10 in QB efficiency, has rushed for more yards than the no. 1 RB on about half the teams in the NFL, and has never lost the ball.
Add Lynch (third in rushing yards with only two fumbles and one lost), and no wonder Seattle's offense is doing fine.
Added: Here's a long article on Brady. The theme is one all of us in the Clinic are familiar with. Brady in his late 30s is having one of the best years of his life because of hard work and attention to details. The term marginal gains is not used, but it probably could be.
Worked for Horner.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
Merckx index said:
LOLZ... Isn´t it funny how many times the same crap is repeated again and again and again?
The good ol bigger heart, better training, lazy opponents and wat else "theory".
"Journalists" would not write such BS if the readers wouldn´t be fooled again and again and again. Yikes!
Just as a side note: Brian Burke (I even linked it here last season AFAIR) found out that QBs in general do not decline with age. Whatever the reason might be*, it´s not that PM, Brady & co found the new super formula to stay young.
* My theory besides good ol PEDs is, that while QBs do decline in athleticism (like arm strength, quickness and speed), they offset it with experience (IOW: knowing all defense schemes that are ever applied + improved reading skills which is to some point the same).
So why does not every QB play until 50?
1.) Injuries will force even the hardest/thoughest or luckiest (being un-injured for a long period of time) to retire one day.
2.) Coaches fall to the occurence of pure chance: The older a QB gets the more likely he is fired after a bad season.
Example: (A = good season, B = bad season)
QB-1: Years; A-B-B-A-B-A-A-B-A-A-B-B = fired
QB-2: Years; A-B-B-A-B-A-A-B-A-A-B-B-A-A-B-A-B-A-A-B-? (fire now, or not; it´s up to pure chance if coaches "spot" decline in his starting QB or not. Coaches can´t know if his QB will have a good next season or not, but may falls to the fallacy of age = must be the reason for his decline)
You forget one very important reason: They've had enough.
It hurts more as you get older, you take longer to recover. You do have to work harder, and pay more attention to detail to stay fit.
You have enough money to retire and a family you haven't seen much of. You are increasingly aware of other opportunities you'd like to have a go at.
It hurts more as you get older, you take longer to recover. You do have to work harder, and pay more attention to detail to stay fit.
You have enough money to retire and a family you haven't seen much of. You are increasingly aware of other opportunities you'd like to have a go at.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
SirLes said:
100% true... but the large pool of players is forced to retire either by injury or by being cut. Thus I left that small group you mentioned out of my example. Just wanted to give a short view of what Brian did in detail...
SirLes said:
Certainly true... but (to the bolded) what can you worker harder and pay more attention to detail in later years? If you don´t do it from day one* in the league, you are out of the billion dollar machine. IOW: Giving 100% from day one can´t be improved.
(* with the exception of high priced high round picks who don´t give it all from the start. But even those get sorted out sooner or later, if they think talent alone keeps them on the NFL fields. Just have a look at all these Lions WRs picked 1st round the last decade for example...)
SirLes said:
True for some players. But most play to the bitter end (see above). And the most crazy and greedy risk all health over more money. See PM (who even risks paralysis for tons of more papers printed with numbers on it, aka dollars), and Favre for example...
Kurt Warner was smart and seemingly not greedy. He took the millions thrown after him, but retired (as he said) "with a intact body", before it´s too late. A QB who was not only great, but also is very intelligent (and fair it seems).
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
BTW: I plan to watch one or more playoff games. That means the Broncos game(s) only. History will be made with the final PM disaster. That one I can´t miss. 
And after that final meltdown I´ll give my last shot at talking about an actual game played. Looking forward that. It wil be a full blown rant of Schadenfreude as you all know.
And after that final meltdown I´ll give my last shot at talking about an actual game played. Looking forward that. It wil be a full blown rant of Schadenfreude as you all know.
- Jul 13, 2010
- 623
- 1
- 9,985
FoxxyBrown1111 said:It wil be a full blown rant of Schadenfreude as you all know.
PM falling for "Foxxy's Curse" bring on the rant!
- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
leftover pie said:
PM falling for "Foxxy's Curse" bring on the rant!
Be patient, only 2/3 weeks to go for the final countdown.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:BTW: I plan to watch one or more playoff games. That means the Broncos game(s) only. History will be made with the final PM disaster. That one I can´t miss.
And after that final meltdown I´ll give my last shot at talking about an actual game played. Looking forward that. It wil be a full blown rant of Schadenfreude as you all know.
That should be easy if you just plan to recycle last year's rant.
Re paying attention to detail: the idea that all pro sports people do everything just right to give themselves the best chance of success is erroneous- and that is completely ignoring any clinic related stuff.
As a young person you can indulge to some degree and get away with it. Alcohol, diet, training, recovery-you don't have to get everything right (or from the other perspective you can do quite a lot wrong) and still perform. There are enough examples from a multitude of sports of individuals who were remarkably reckless but highly successful.
However as you get older that is definitely not the case. You need to be very disciplined over all the very boring stuff throughout the year. It would be interesting to study in detail sports people who have have had long careers from a perspective of their psychology.
A lot of sport is very boring. The day today stuff that doesn't involve the actual playing is usually the bit that gets you.
I didn't play pro sport but for many years my sport ruled my life. When I retired it was the travelling and team meeting and that sort of thing that I got fed up with. Always loved training and the actual playing the game.
As a young person you can indulge to some degree and get away with it. Alcohol, diet, training, recovery-you don't have to get everything right (or from the other perspective you can do quite a lot wrong) and still perform. There are enough examples from a multitude of sports of individuals who were remarkably reckless but highly successful.
However as you get older that is definitely not the case. You need to be very disciplined over all the very boring stuff throughout the year. It would be interesting to study in detail sports people who have have had long careers from a perspective of their psychology.
A lot of sport is very boring. The day today stuff that doesn't involve the actual playing is usually the bit that gets you.
I didn't play pro sport but for many years my sport ruled my life. When I retired it was the travelling and team meeting and that sort of thing that I got fed up with. Always loved training and the actual playing the game.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 17: Ribadesella/Ribadeseya - Altu de l’Angliru, 124.4k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 1K
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 18: Pola de Allande - La Cruz de Linares, 178.9k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 858
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 13: Formigal - Col du Tourmalet, 134.7k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 1K
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 20: Manzanares El Real - Guadarrama, 207.8k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 507
-
European Championships 2023: Individual Time Trial (September 20) and Mixed Team Relay (September 21)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 168
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 16: Liencres Playa - Bejes, 120.1k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 598
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 21: Hipódromo de la Zarzuela - Madrid, 101.1k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 327
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram