National Football League

Page 208 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
But it's not 100%
... and I never claimed that ...

Anyway...

Funny thing is, the stadium was good enough for all Raiders players stepping on that field until 2015... including the glorious area.

Again: No player decides where to go coz of facilities... Alpe has more of an argument; may some players chose less money if staying near their backround.
Sorry, 99%.

You really aren't well informed on this topic. That field has been the source of complaints from players for 2 decades now, and is absolutely, without question a factor in the Raiders struggling to get quality free agents into the team. I live right here and have been watching it on the news for the better part of 2 decades. Not sure where you get your view on this, but it's simply not informed.

Saying "the stadium was good enough for all Raider players...until 2015" is flat out wrong.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/25102744/why-the-raiders-must-spend-but-cant-get-anybody-to-take-their-money

Problem is, Oakland is back in the same predicament this season, again unable to lure big fish free agents to town for myriad reasons, yet also, at a time when trades were being made a dizzying rate on Tuesday, not a part of that free-for-all, either. And that's what gives me pause.

Owner Mark Davis's liquidity is always under question, and he has a decrepit stadium with the lowest revenue streams in the league.
There are a host of reasons why the Raiders can't land top free agents. This first article I found in literally 2 seconds lists the stadium among the first. I'm certain you can find dozens of others dating back to the 90's. It's a problem, and it's not in question by anyone who is informed on the situation.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Randy Moss was a big fish, Gannon was, Rice was... and so on, and so on... and the first one even got there knowing fully well he goes to a shitty team...
 
I've been there, and the place is a dump. But while I agree that they have lured great players, there is no doubt it's been a subject of strain for years. It has to play at least some factor. Not as much as money. And not as much as playing near home. And not as much as a team with great ownership and management (NE, Pitt, Sea, Baltimore, etc). But it's still a factor. Players don't like playing football on dirt. And they don't like locker rooms that look like they belong to a high school.

In other news, with Michael Vick joining the Steelers, it gives the team maybe the two most disliked QB's in the NFL. But what I find more interesting is how different of styles Big Ben and Vick have. If Ben goes down, how much will the Steelers shift their offense?

The poor 49ers continue to lead the league in employing thugs and criminals. It's just astounding. Ray McDonald (who they'd already released) was indicted for raping a girl he got drunk. And it looks like Niners linebacker Ahmad Brooks has been charged with misdemeanor sexual battery. Brooks may get out with no jail time, but MacDonald is done and very likely to head to prison, where he could get up to 9 years. I have to wonder how much longer Trent Baalke can keep his job as GM there. If (when?) they finish in dead last this year, with a record of maybe 6-10 at best, how much of this will Jed York put up with?

Meanwhile, in more injury bad news, Washington's Junior Galette has torn his Achilles in practice and is done for the year. He was big for the Saints last year and expected to really contribute as an OLB/DE pass rush specialist (think Mario Williams meets Bruce Irvin), so this really hurts. With this continued rash of injuries in pre-season, I can't help but recall what Bill Belicheck said a few years ago when the CBA was signed about how "resting" players this time of the year by limiting contact, was a recipe for more injuries.

We often talk about what is the most position in the game. And while we agree it's the QB, we wonder what's next. Well, Bucky Brooks of NFL.com has a list, and he has dedicated pass rusher (what Galette is), next.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

Russell Wilson is a rather strange guy I think. Friendly, positive, engaging, but strange. He was asked recently about how in last year's championship game getting hammered by Clay Matthews. Wilson said a drink he was able to heal because of a drink he's an investor in (and pimp for), Recovery Water. Say what? Even his agent stopped him from going too far. Here's the link. Good article by the way. Even with all that, you can't help but like the guy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/russell-wilson-the-chosen-one-20150826

Finally, just for Foxxy. Here's a good article on the most overpaid player at each position in the NFL. Eli Manning came to mind for me, but I have to agree with the article.

http://football-players.pointafter.com/stories/5055/most-overpaid-nfl-players-by-position
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Randy Moss was a big fish, Gannon was, Rice was... and so on, and so on... and the first one even got there knowing fully well he goes to a shitty team...
Rice and Moss were massively overpaid to come there, which is exactly my point. While it has nothing to do with the point of the discussion, it's worth clarifying that rather than being a "big fish", Gannon was a career backup, until he came to Oakland where he flourished under Gruden and his system. His signing at the time was a mild head-scratcher.

Story out yesterday: http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/new-raiders-performance-center-put-jaws-floor

The Raiders modernized a facility that should help attract free agents and make players more excited to come to work each day, finally bringing this complex up to date.
This isn't even controversial, it's a simple fact of the business. Believe what you want, it doesn't change anything about the reality.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Believe what you want either, but...
we started with you saying facilities have a big impact on FA signings. I said otherwise, the infulence being minuscule. Everything else you make of it is your business, not mine. Period.

Btw, "big fish" FA signings are always overpaid, since the highest bidder makes the deal. For further infos go to Brian Burkes page. He didicated a whole story on why it is so.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
I've been there, and the place is a dump. But while I agree that they have lured great players, there is no doubt it's been a subject of strain for years. It has to play at least some factor. Not as much as money. And not as much as playing near home. And not as much as a team with great ownership and management (NE, Pitt, Sea, Baltimore, etc). But it's still a factor.
Alpe, agreed on that already... is a factor behind... money, home, ownership, management, etc... and then facilities.

Btw, thanks for the link of the overpaid. Yeah hard to disagree with Cutler being their No 1 at QB. Anyway, mine is the book of Eli. Which is full of Ints & luck.
Especially like that sentence. Finally they get it. I almost lost hope. ;) "Grossly overpaid running backs are becoming a rarity in the NFL, as front offices are understandably cautious in committing big money to a position largely regarded as replaceable."
I sing that song since years as ya all know...
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Believe what you want either, but...
we started with you saying facilities have a big impact on FA signings. I said otherwise, the infulence being minuscule. Everything else you make of it is your business, not mine. Period.

Btw, "big fish" FA signings are always overpaid, since the highest bidder makes the deal. For further infos go to Brian Burkes page. He didicated a whole story on why it is so.
There is no dispute that big-time free agents in general are overpaid, that's obvious to anyone.

To the actual point, if you don't think the Raiders have a history of overpaying free agents beyond what they could get elsewhere, you are again, simply not informed about the situation. It's not up for debate, it's a long-established fact which you're welcome to research.

You saying the effect of facilities on free-agent signings is miniscule is subjective and unsupported and goes against multiple informed sources in the league and countless statements of players.

I don't expect the whole world to be an expert on the Raiders' free agency history or have deep insight into what factors go into signings in general. It's OK.
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I've been there, and the place is a dump. But while I agree that they have lured great players, there is no doubt it's been a subject of strain for years. It has to play at least some factor. Not as much as money. And not as much as playing near home. And not as much as a team with great ownership and management (NE, Pitt, Sea, Baltimore, etc). But it's still a factor.
Alpe, agreed on that already... is a factor behind... money, home, ownership, management, etc... and then facilities.

Btw, thanks for the link of the overpaid. Yeah hard to disagree with Cutler being their No 1 at QB. Anyway, mine is the book of Eli. Which is full of Ints & luck.
Especially like that sentence. Finally they get it. I almost lost hope. ;) "Grossly overpaid running backs are becoming a rarity in the NFL, as front offices are understandably cautious in committing big money to a position largely regarded as replaceable."
I sing that song since years as ya all know...
The attitude towards impact RBs is a fad that will swing back around. Football (sports in general) is about momentum, a couple of big plays by a RB can swing the game (ie: Lynch, Murray), plus it opens the passing game. Ask the Steelers what happens when Bell goes down. Sure momentum plays can come from WR, TE, D, Special teams, but why not have that option in the backfield as well? Even better, have a RB who can also catch the ball. I know the talking heads have made it fashionable to talk about "replaceable RBs", but they talk about a lot of things that aren't accurate.

The pats won the SB without a RB being an impact, but they had impact plays from 3 or 4 other guys. Who knows, if Seattle would have given the ball to Lynch he might have had the last big impact instead of Butler, and the talking heads might have changed their tune sooner rather than later.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
I've been there, and the place is a dump. But while I agree that they have lured great players, there is no doubt it's been a subject of strain for years. It has to play at least some factor. Not as much as money. And not as much as playing near home. And not as much as a team with great ownership and management (NE, Pitt, Sea, Baltimore, etc). But it's still a factor. Players don't like playing football on dirt. And they don't like locker rooms that look like they belong to a high school.

In other news, with Michael Vick joining the Steelers, it gives the team maybe the two most disliked QB's in the NFL. But what I find more interesting is how different of styles Big Ben and Vick have. If Ben goes down, how much will the Steelers shift their offense?

The poor 49ers continue to lead the league in employing thugs and criminals. It's just astounding. Ray McDonald (who they'd already released) was indicted for raping a girl he got drunk. And it looks like Niners linebacker Ahmad Brooks has been charged with misdemeanor sexual battery. Brooks may get out with no jail time, but MacDonald is done and very likely to head to prison, where he could get up to 9 years. I have to wonder how much longer Trent Baalke can keep his job as GM there. If (when?) they finish in dead last this year, with a record of maybe 6-10 at best, how much of this will Jed York put up with?

Meanwhile, in more injury bad news, Washington's Junior Galette has torn his Achilles in practice and is done for the year. He was big for the Saints last year and expected to really contribute as an OLB/DE pass rush specialist (think Mario Williams meets Bruce Irvin), so this really hurts. With this continued rash of injuries in pre-season, I can't help but recall what Bill Belicheck said a few years ago when the CBA was signed about how "resting" players this time of the year by limiting contact, was a recipe for more injuries.

We often talk about what is the most position in the game. And while we agree it's the QB, we wonder what's next. Well, Bucky Brooks of NFL.com has a list, and he has dedicated pass rusher (what Galette is), next.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

Russell Wilson is a rather strange guy I think. Friendly, positive, engaging, but strange. He was asked recently about how in last year's championship game getting hammered by Clay Matthews. Wilson said a drink he was able to heal because of a drink he's an investor in (and pimp for), Recovery Water. Say what? Even his agent stopped him from going too far. Here's the link. Good article by the way. Even with all that, you can't help but like the guy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/russell-wilson-the-chosen-one-20150826

Finally, just for Foxxy. Here's a good article on the most overpaid player at each position in the NFL. Eli Manning came to mind for me, but I have to agree with the article.

http://football-players.pointafter.com/stories/5055/most-overpaid-nfl-players-by-position
2 most hated qbs? You mean Ben? I know he had the rape charge but I always thought he was quite well liked, especially due to his style of play which is constantly taking hits.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Re: Re:

The attitude towards impact RBs is a fad that will swing back around. Football (sports in general) is about momentum, a couple of big plays by a RB can swing the game (ie: Lynch, Murray), plus it opens the passing game.
There are a lot of myths in Football. Many are debunked... Momentum is one of them. It is simply not existing. Its normal variance. Burke sliced it up and down, left and right... there is no evidence it exists. I posted the link a year ago (?). Just search "momentum" in the NFL thread.
A couple of big plays by the WR... or the OL-Men... or the QB... or the CB... and son on... can swing a game too.
No, it does not open up the passing game. We went trou it x times here. My favourite is NE facing PIT No. 1 pass-defense, still they run the ball only 4 times... and smashed them.
Further (also linked, please do a search); Play action pass efficiency is indepenent of running efficiency. For example IND and ARZ led the league when their running game was basically... not existent.
So, have a guy that can run fast and cut (thus having fine motor skills*), an IQ of 50 or more (at least he shall be able to remember the snap count and know which hole to hit), put him in the backfield, and you have your RB.
* No need to pay him millions, since all RBs invited to NFL training camps have those skills.

Ask the Steelers what happens when Bell goes down.
No need to ask. Nothing will change. ;) Big Ben delivers or not (while being protected, and his WRs/TEs get open). That is what matters.

I know the talking heads have made it fashionable to talk about "replaceable RBs"
Actually it was the first time I heard that from talking heads. After years of waiting, they finally got it...

The pats won the SB without a RB being an impact
They are not the first one, and certainly not the last...

Who knows, if Seattle would have given the ball to Lynch he might have had the last big impact instead of Butler
Who knows, if Hakim didn´t fumble the punted ball, SL would have smashed BAL in the 2000 SB... :)
 
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
The attitude towards impact RBs is a fad that will swing back around. Football (sports in general) is about momentum, a couple of big plays by a RB can swing the game (ie: Lynch, Murray), plus it opens the passing game.
There are a lot of myths in Football. Many are debunked... Momentum is one of them. It is simply not existing. Its normal variance. Burke sliced it up and down, left and right... there is no evidence it exists. I posted the link a year ago (?). Just search "momentum" in the NFL thread.
A couple of big plays by the WR... or the OL-Men... or the QB... or the CB... and son on... can swing a game too.
No, it does not open up the passing game. We went trou it x times here. My favourite is NE facing PIT No. 1 pass-defense, still they run the ball only 4 times... and smashed them.
Further (also linked, please do a search); Play action pass efficiency is indepenent of running efficiency. For example IND and ARZ led the league when their running game was basically... not existent.
So, have a guy that can run fast and cut (thus having fine motor skills*), an IQ of 50 or more (at least he shall be able to remember the snap count and know which hole to hit), put him in the backfield, and you have your RB.
* No need to pay him millions, since all RBs invited to NFL training camps have those skills.

Ask the Steelers what happens when Bell goes down.
No need to ask. Nothing will change. ;) Big Ben delivers or not (while being protected, and his WRs/TEs get open). That is what matters.

I know the talking heads have made it fashionable to talk about "replaceable RBs"
Actually it was the first time I heard that from talking heads. After years of waiting, they finally got it...

The pats won the SB without a RB being an impact
They are not the first one, and certainly not the last...

Who knows, if Seattle would have given the ball to Lynch he might have had the last big impact instead of Butler
Who knows, if Hakim didn´t fumble the punted ball, SL would have smashed BAL in the 2000 SB... :)
Sometimes I think that you watch and understand football, other times I wonder. Posting something does not make it a fact. Funny that I lay out the talking heads for what they are, and you use talking heads to counter. FYI: the Steelers lost their momentum without Bell and went on vacation while other teams moved on.

EDIT: Funny thing, when I searched "momentum" it came up with about 20 posts, a dozen of them yours with you talking about teams having momentum!

Even Burke, while dismissing momentum, says that some drives would benefit from momentum: "Not every drive would be expected to benefit from a momentum effect following a big play, but some of them would, and certainly we would not expect performance to be depressed." So to avoid semantics, teams often play better after exciting things happen, and that usually has an impact on the end result (Burke calls this "streaky").

Maybe I read the wrong research, but it was about the effects on the offense after a big play by the defense. Was there data about effects of big offensive plays on the offense?

Next discussion: shifts in momentum.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
In other news, with Michael Vick joining the Steelers, it gives the team maybe the two most disliked QB's in the NFL. But what I find more interesting is how different of styles Big Ben and Vick have. If Ben goes down, how much will the Steelers shift their offense?

The poor 49ers continue to lead the league in employing thugs and criminals. It's just astounding. Ray McDonald (who they'd already released) was indicted for raping a girl he got drunk. And it looks like Niners linebacker Ahmad Brooks has been charged with misdemeanor sexual battery.
2 most hated qbs? You mean Ben? I know he had the rape charge but I always thought he was quite well liked, especially due to his style of play which is constantly taking hits.
Nice links there BTW. On Big Ben, even before the rape allegation I think he was viewed as a bit lacking in good judgement. And for me what solidified that was his helmet-less motorcycle accident where he got a little banged up, including the ***, but nothing too serious. After the accident he said that he would continue to not wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. After that experience he should be smarter than that.

On SF, to quote the former HC, "players have to be above reproach". Karma. Hope it works out better in Ann Arbor, MI. For the kids sake.
 
You guys Foxxy and Jmdirt are cracking me up over the momentum debate. Actually, i think you are both kind of right. Momentum is just a simple, easy word used by someone to describe what they really don't know is happening on the field. It just conveys the fact that at the moment one team is getting the upper hand on the other team. What most of us do not always know while watching is what is happening to cause that. THAT's the interesting part. Is it X's and O's (play calling, isolating an offensive player vs a defensive weakness), is one team or key members of a team gassed, fitness (teams that like to run hurry-up no huddle a lot typically are more fit), skill level (is one team just better) and winning the battle of the trenches, mistakes of all kinds, turnovers, did a team just get a shot of adrenaline after a great play (often what ppl are referring to when they say momentum). Those are some factors that result in viewers saying simply "they have the momentum". The thing about momentum is how does the team getting the beat down respond. Yeah, one team maybe makes a great play, and that can get that team jacked up. But it can also work the other way by the other team responding to the challenge. Great teams and great characters do that.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Re: Re:

Sometimes I think that you watch and understand football, other times I wonder. Posting something does not make it a fact.
... thats why I underline my opinion with facts like links, or at least name the source. :)
I am not posting some (new) myths that cant be backed up.


Funny that I lay out the talking heads for what they are, and you use talking heads to counter.
I guess it was my first time ever I hailed the talking heads (would you agree Alpe? ;) ).
Why I did so? Because they hit the nail. At least once...

FYI: the Steelers lost their momentum without Bell and went on vacation while other teams moved on.
And what happened to the teams having Herschel Walker, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton, Gale Sayers, Bo Jackson, OJ Simpson, Barry Sanders, and so on, and so on,... where is the momentum they gave to their teams? Where are the Superbowls (yeah, there is one... one phucking one... when Walter had a OLine in sync and a healthy QB heaving it to world class sprinter Willie Gault)? Where is the winning impact from this greats?

Otoh, you have guys like Arian Foster, Priest Holmes, Settle, Timmy Smith, Michael Turner, Mike Anderson, Willie Parker, Chester Taylor, Fred Jackson, Dominic Rhodes, and so on, and so on... all 1.000 yards/season runners (and one hailed SB record breaking no name RB), yet undrafted or low picked.

Fact is: RBs are replaceable. Always were, always will. It´s the Line baby, it´s the Line. :)

EDIT: Funny thing, when I searched "momentum" it came up with about 20 posts, a dozen of them yours with you talking about teams having momentum!
I guarantee all of them were before Burke wrote his article... I am not against learning.

Even Burke, while dismissing momentum, says that some drives would benefit from momentum
AFAIR, the impact of this "momentum" was/is minuscule... It certainly isn´t the big deal commentators make it. Not even close.
Variance, chance/luck have a much much greater impact on game results than any kind of "momentum" (whatever that is in the first place). Burke also wrote great articles on the influence of luck in game outcomes. AFAIR, it was around 50%!

Next discussion: shifts in momentum
There is no such thing. :p
It´s variance.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Re:

Momentum is just a simple, easy word used by someone to describe what they really don't know is happening on the field.
Some would call it variance, chance or luck. ;)

It just conveys the fact that at the moment one team is getting the upper hand on the other team.
I would agree on that.
To have one team winning, one must get the upper hand somewhere in a game. Otherwise we´d have Butter-Ball with 256 regular season 0-0 ties. :D
 
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Momentum is just a simple, easy word used by someone to describe what they really don't know is happening on the field.
Some would call it variance, chance or luck. ;)
That's a nice segue to a statistical approach to define momentum. How do you know when a team has momentum? When the yardage gained by one team over their last 2 possessions is 2 standard deviations greater than the opposing team's yardage gained... Naw. I just made that up.

But here's an interesting discussion about momentum (seems this has been debated at length by others):
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2014/momentum-vs-confidence
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Thanks for the link.

I like this, coz it is a good summary I would agree on:

Peter Koski: Momentum is a psychological crutch used to validate the result of a series of random events because people are uncomfortable that we live in such a universe where events unfold the way they do "just because."

What constitutes momentum in an NFL game? When exactly does it begin? Momentum's origin is always so easily marked in hindsight, yet remains very tricky to locate in real-time. It seems that momentum's origin can never be pinpointed and instead exists as a Schrodinger's Cat that either exists or does not exist until you go back to measure it from some future point in time. In Green Bay on Sunday, the 49ers defense forced three straight 3-and-outs and held a 6-0 lead after the first quarter and were driving into Green Bay territory to start the second quarter. They had "THE MOMENTUM!" However, after riding that momentum 30 yards into GB territory, Kaepernick threw an interception and GB drove to score a touchdown and took the lead 7-6. So, was Momentum tricking us into thinking SF had the momentum, when really GB had the momentum all along because they only allowed two field goals despite being massively outgained offensively? Well, the 49ers scored five plays after GB's touchdown to grab the lead back, but did they also grab the momentum? The "Fumble Luck" touchdown was not random, it was the Momentum's righteous providence! These are but two of the enumerable examples that we see each week exposing the folly of "momentum" in the NFL. We know what momentum means within the NFL lexicon: One team's victory was possible because they achieved a series of successful outcomes that overwhelmed the opponent's ability to counter. The true alternative is frightening to many fans and leads to them to cling to "momentum;" events unfolded whose results were heavily influenced by randomness and ultimately outside direct control of either team to a certain degree.

There's a definite confusion between confidence and momentum. When negative events unfold and confidence is lost, it's possible that focus is also lost and momentum is observed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. All it takes is one play to "swing momentum," which I think in itself invalidates the definition of momentum.


... and now we could shift our attention to "choking" :D and if it exists. You guys know my opinion...
 
OK, I'm converted, its all random, nothing more nothing less... :rolleyes:

Its just semantics. OK you don't like the implications of momentum, so momentum doesn't exist, but guys play with more confidence, nope can't use that word, they get a jolt of adrenaline, no not that either, they're pissed off, that's not even a real thing so... I'm assuming that skill doesn't really play a part either since its all just random, and would happen even in a vacuum. OOPS can't use vacuum because the data model doesn't support it.

"I would also say that, should you flesh all of this out and do a test for "momentum", the most you could conclude is that there's no support for such a theory, based on the data you have. You cannot really conclude "momentum doesn't exist". Our reality could always be generated by a more complicated model than the reality we actually experience."

"This.
For a number of sports analytics types, a proof that "momentum doesn't exist" seems to be the Holy Grail. I don't think that'll ever happen for the reason mentioned in the last sentence above. It may make for a fun discussion (for small values of "fun"). But pursuit of this Holy Grail doesn't really seem to advance the state of the sports analytics art. The pursuit ends up with a leap to a conclusion the data won't support. We just get statements (and re-statements) of faith by both sides of the argument."
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
OK, I'm converted, its all random, nothing more nothing less... :rolleyes:

Its just semantics. OK you don't like the implications of momentum, so momentum doesn't exist, but guys play with more confidence, nope can't use that word,...
No! Don't throw in the towel! This is just getting fun. If I had to pick a one word synonym for momentum it would sometimes be confidence. Players know when they have momentum. They can feel it. And it feels like a lot of confidence. And there are those moments in a game when you know you have it. But to me the difference between momentum and confidence is momentum is not communicated and cannot always exist for any one team (e.g. a team taking a beat down would not have momentum, but they might have confidence). Confidence is communicated and can exist when it isn't going well. There are many, but one example of that is Russell Wilson. That dude exudes confidence. It's infectious and makes everyone better. Especially when things are not looking so good and it matters most. But that is a different kind of confidence than the confidence felt when the team has momentum, the difference being the situation. In the former, you are losing the dog fight, and winning it in the latter.

Now when I posted the link with Koski's analysis I said it was interesting. I did not actually agree with it all. Up next... debunking Koski.
 
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Thanks for the link.

I like this, coz it is a good summary I would agree on:

Peter Koski: Momentum is a psychological crutch used to validate the result of a series of random events because people are uncomfortable that we live in such a universe where events unfold the way they do "just because."

What constitutes momentum in an NFL game? When exactly does it begin? Momentum's origin is always so easily marked in hindsight, yet remains very tricky to locate in real-time. It seems that momentum's origin can never be pinpointed and instead exists as a Schrodinger's Cat that either exists or does not exist until you go back to measure it from some future point in time. In Green Bay on Sunday, the 49ers defense forced three straight 3-and-outs and held a 6-0 lead after the first quarter and were driving into Green Bay territory to start the second quarter. They had "THE MOMENTUM!" However, after riding that momentum 30 yards into GB territory, Kaepernick threw an interception and GB drove to score a touchdown and took the lead 7-6. So, was Momentum tricking us into thinking SF had the momentum, when really GB had the momentum all along because they only allowed two field goals despite being massively outgained offensively? Well, the 49ers scored five plays after GB's touchdown to grab the lead back, but did they also grab the momentum? The "Fumble Luck" touchdown was not random, it was the Momentum's righteous providence! These are but two of the enumerable examples that we see each week exposing the folly of "momentum" in the NFL. We know what momentum means within the NFL lexicon: One team's victory was possible because they achieved a series of successful outcomes that overwhelmed the opponent's ability to counter. The true alternative is frightening to many fans and leads to them to cling to "momentum;" events unfolded whose results were heavily influenced by randomness and ultimately outside direct control of either team to a certain degree.

There's a definite confusion between confidence and momentum. When negative events unfold and confidence is lost, it's possible that focus is also lost and momentum is observed as a self-fulfilling prophecy. All it takes is one play to "swing momentum," which I think in itself invalidates the definition of momentum.
Winning is what it's all about. That's what fans want for their team, that's what coaches need to keep their job, and nobody wants to finish second. So much energy and thought has been devoted to winning. So, there are different philosophies on winning, or what it takes to win. I will give you one rule, the 60-30-10 Rule:
- 60% of the time a team beats itself by making mistakes.
- 30% of the time a teams wins by just being better. And the better pie can be sliced a lot of ways... better athletes, better execution at individual player lever and also at team level.
- 10% of the time BIG MO is responsible for a win. That's as in big momentum.

So with that formula, an organization will want to accumulate as much coaching and player talent as they can afford, do so by wisely spending, and get the entire team to make as few mistakes as possible. Then they should win about 90% of the time.

But what's BIG MO got to do with winning? Enter Koski's analysis. His statements that I disagree with are in bold text. He's insinuating in the first statement that there's nothing that can be done to change an outcome. Nonsense! That really goes without saying, otherwise why soldier on? Just lay down and let random events determine the outcome. Bull stools I say. What I said in my previous post is that confidence in the face of adversity can translate to momentum (and the other kind of confidence by success), one play at a time. In real-time.

Secondly, requiring hindsight to see momentum, whereas in real-time we can't. Again, I'll quote the colorful metaphor about Bull excrement. Here's the fundamental problem with that statement, he's a sportswriter sitting up in a booth and has no sense for the feel of the game because he is not playing it. But players know in real-time how confident they are about executing their next assignment on any given play. That's a feeling nobody in the stands has any clue about. Players feel it real-time, to viewers it only comes later as the result of outcome.

So, BIG MO... having confidence to put together one successful play at a time while overcoming some setbacks along the way (e.g. never give up on 2nd or 3rd and 10 yards to go for the first down), building confidence as you go to reach to goal. Really, BIG MO should have been BIG COnfidence. But MO sounds better. I mean we have MOJO, not COJO. BIG MO is a motivation thing for players and a mindset. And it is a way of life. And that is why I disagree with Koski so much.

BIG MO is the kind of stuff that some college coaches teach players, knowing most players will not make it to the NFL and the will have to become contributing citizens.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
OK, I'm converted, its all random, nothing more nothing less...
Be upset all you want, it doesnt change a thing. :p

I played myself different sports... Did I have good games, and bad ones? Yes of course... Good streaks, bad streaks? Yes ofc... Where there times to give up and dont care to be blown out as a whole team? Yes ofc... Did we as a whole team had "momentum" that swung back and forth? All at the same time? LOLZ. Yes ofc... not. Never happened that we all "peaked" at the same time, "bringing our game to another level" to have a "momentum" swing. That is plain and simple preposterous... But we had variance, random streaks, no doubt about that...

... oh, and I choked under pressure. That is a given. Sad, but true.
 
The data guys can't calculate momentum so it doesn't exist...to them. Yes, the natural world is full of random, but there is too much unnatural input in an NFL game to put into a simple algorithm.

I don't think that the data guys have provided enough proof to support their hypothesis. Maybe its a bit of a semantics game too.

Burke "yells" at those who don't agree with him "you dumb arses can't understand the real world so you label it with a word". I always feel like Foxxy is yelling at anyone who doesn't agree with him. I guess I'm yelling back.

"... oh, and I choked under pressure. That is a given. Sad, but true." There is no significant data to support chocking, its just random events of the natural world. :rolleyes:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
St. Louis versus Baltimore in which Super Bowl?!
You know I was kidding about the "if"... anyway... the year Warner started out like an alien ;)
SL played without a D, literally. Still they started 6-0, winning games like 53-41... and then Warner injured his thumb. Then the season went on so so from there (even though Green played super as replacement, as expected with that OL and Receivers). Then Warner got concussed vs NO in the playoffs, his balls wobbled... and still he brought SL back vs NO... Then Hakim fumbled. No doubt, if SL completed that comeback, they´d have gone on to the SB instead of the crappy Giants with Collins-I-cant-even-hit-receivers-standing-in-front-of-me (even though he had a monster arm :D ).

Warner was on his way to break all imaginable records in that season. The best ever season that wasnt...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS