National Football League

Page 79 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Wow, just when it was starting to look like Huston & Atlanta were pretenders rather than contenders, they both made a statement with convincing wins over conference rivals.

Green Bay & Denver - my personal picks to make it to the Super Bowl, with Green Bay coming out on top- continue to roll.

Detroit is in free fall. And, Jay Cutler, is looking more an more like he's not the guy to turn around Chicago's muribund offense. I'll be suprised if both Cutler and Lovie Smith are back in Chicago next year. I expect at least one of them to be cut loose.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Cutler is an 1+ A$$hole. I have big Schadenfreude that the Bears have an worse offense than under Martz.

Everybody wanted him out of CHI (and Cutler was a big force too to fire him), and now they got their wish... CHI will have to wait another 25+ years for a SB, b/c they fire everybody who don´t like to run the ball or who has some kind of idea how to run an NFL offense.
Well Bears, this is 2012, not 1975. Live in the present not in neantertaler age. It´s a passing league.

Remember that one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hH_8bw809o

I know not many Martz believers (if at all) nowadays, but i stand by him as everybody knows here.

Interesting link to stories of each teams history
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/toc/nfl/afcteams.html
 
What a wild game in NE! Both teams almost blew it. Well, I guess you could say NE did early. But what a game. If there ever was a question about Colin Kaepernick, it was answered.

Next week's SF - Seattle game should really be something. The way Seattle demolished the Bills today, and putting up 108 points in two weeks. The Seahawks are red hot and even if they lose to SF next week, I would not want to play them in the playoffs.

Despite the pathetic loss today, I still see the Giants getting into the playoffs and being dangerous (or lucky) as a possibility.

Adrian Peterson needs 283 to top Eric Dickerson's single season NFL rushing record. I don't think he'll get there as they play Houston and GB. But he will likely get to 2000.

No respect for the Cowboys letting Josh Brent on the field today. The complete wrong message.
 
MNF was ugly, ugly, ugly. Jets fans have to feel like they've been kicked in the gut. The ESPN guys were hyper critical at how dysfunctional and disorganized the Jets are as a whole. I'm starting to think Mark Sanchez is damaged goods at this point. Only so much can fall on his shoulders, he seemed lost and as Trent Dilfer was saying poorly coached and made mistakes you shouldn't make at this level in his career. Even Gruden seemed to have no answers. Playing Tebow was a waste as well. Every play looked like a broken play. Just an ugly loss.

Not much credit to the Titans either. They looked like the 5-9 team they are. CJ had one great run, Locker moves well, but is inaccurate. But considering their entire OL are 2nd to 4th string Ill give them a little slack. They did just enough to win, barely.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
MNF was ugly, ugly, ugly. Jets fans have to feel like they've been kicked in the gut. The ESPN guys were hyper critical at how dysfunctional and disorganized the Jets are as a whole. I'm starting to think Mark Sanchez is damaged goods at this point. Only so much can fall on his shoulders, he seemed lost and as Trent Dilfer was saying poorly coached and made mistakes you shouldn't make at this level in his career. Even Gruden seemed to have no answers. Playing Tebow was a waste as well. Every play looked like a broken play. Just an ugly loss.
Agree. I did not get to watch much due to road trip over the weekend, but did get to take in MNF. I agree Sanchez is damaged goods (esp. head). He has no OLine, but throws he should make he does not. Terrible. From highest expectations at his drafting to this. Rex is partly to blame. Agree with Dilfer and Gruden. It's inexplicable. What a messed up organization. To the defense of the QBs, no QB can establish rhythm playing a snap or two or one series. That's mostly to Tebow's defense... Sanch has played more than enough to establish rhythm. I don't get Sanchez, who has flashes of greatness followed by dog piles (& I don't mean the human body football dog piles and end of plays). That organization needs to make some changes all around.

man u guys put up a lot of posts since I was last here. Like rubber hitting the road.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
To the defense of the QBs, no QB can establish rhythm playing a snap or two or one series. That's mostly to Tebow's defense... Sanch has played more than enough to establish rhythm.
Here is a very good article about the life of backup QBS.
http://info4students.com/time-for-a-new-nfl-backup-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 can´t 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. That´s amazing, given the facts described in the linked article.

Conclusion: "Star"-QB´s are even more overrated than I ever thought (and i thought i was going the farthest to "discredit" the so called superstars). And that is something.
Finally, why do i do it? To defend my QB-Rankings.:p
Actually they are "wrong". But not in the case like some guys might think (that i should include Montana & PManning* for example), no, the other way around. I may should exclude Roethlisberger and re-think if i should not include guys like Jeff George or Steve Grogan (a guy who outperformed Eason, Cavanaugh and all the other NE-QBS of his era** almost every year, yet he wasn´t always the starter with enough reps in practise!)...

* I excludecd PManning only b/c of his mega busts in the playoffs. Now the stat guys (like me :eek:) could explain it away b/c of small sample sizes. But OTOH PManning just didn´t passed my eye test (like Favre and Cunningham). Every time come playoff time he came out nervous (after his usual perfect games against DEN), throwing wobbling balls, being off target, being sacked more often,... things not seen during the RS. He even had terrible games in the SB-Year, where he had one good half (vs. NE; maybe b/c he thought "who cares, it´s too late, so just have fun now", so all his nervousness was gone).
Favre we all know didn´t win anything except the one year he had the best NFL-D (1996). The other seasons he threw ill advised PO-Ending-INT´s year after year.
Cunningham was also "special". Remember the NO-Game when he threw one hoppers one yard short of his targets (like McNabb used to have when nervous, but that´s another story). I couldn´t believe a guy with his talent & strength completely being lost and his arm melting like butter. Or the ATL-Game where he was so nervous late in the game that he even didn´t trust his self to throw to a wide open (Carter AFIR) WR in the EZ. Instead he gave the pressure to his K, who failed...
I have to agree with Alpe here; sometimes stats can´t explain everything, even tough numbers don´t lie.

** My reasearch i do now start with the 1980 season until last year.
 
Jul 24, 2011
467
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
MNF was ugly, ugly, ugly.
****-poor quality
i suffered through it, because i picked the titans, and could tie up scores in our prediction game with the win. just imagine my anguish..
a laughable ending too..

i actually feel sorry for Sanchez at this point.. just embarassing..
and putting tebow in the game for a five-play stretch when Sanchez is playing well, and finally has a good rhythm? what was that all about?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
This week...

Alpe 9-6
Amster 9-7
Me 9-6 (should have not changed my WAS-Pick. If i only started my Starter/Backup research earlier, i´d have gone 10-5)
:D So what's your opinion - keep Captain Kirk in for the Philly game, on the assumption that we can't lose that one and make double sure that RG3 is completely fit for the Cowgirls, OR should RG3 go back in this week on the assumption that he's almost 100%?

Jeez, 9-7 is my worst result in ages. The only one I'm kicking myself about is the Ravens, where I deliberately let my heart rule my head. Backing against Peyton when he's on this kind of a roll was just stupid. They're going to win out (the regular season anyway) with him.


We might should pick exact results? To get more differences. Just an idea.
Bit late for that this season. Maybe next season. Besides, I suck at scores.:eek:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
:D So what's your opinion - keep Captain Kirk in for the Philly game, on the assumption that we can't lose that one and make double sure that RG3 is completely fit for the Cowgirls, OR should RG3 go back in this week on the assumption that he's almost 100%?
My reasearch is halfway so i don´t know. OTOH, i think RG3 is soo good that he maybe indeed is worth an extra win per season (where i doubt now that any other NFL-Starter has that talent outside of Newton maybe).
Captain Kirk has now a good chunk of reps, but more practise makes more perfect, so i think start RG3.

Amsterhammer said:
Jeez, 9-7 is my worst result in ages. The only one I'm kicking myself about is the Ravens, where I deliberately let my heart rule my head. Backing against Peyton when he's on this kind of a roll was just stupid. They're going to win out (the regular season anyway) with him.
I still stand by my words. Peyton is a great RS-QB (as was Favre). But be patient, he will falter in the playoffs... He won´t disappoint me. :D

Amsterhammer said:
Bit late for that this season. Maybe next season. Besides, I suck at scores.:eek:
I´ll do my picks with results. Just for the fun of it...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
My picks:

ATL 24, DET 23
OAK 13, CAR 24
BUF 20, MIA 24
CIN 17, PIT 23
NE 27, JAX 20
IND 20, KC 17
NO 24, DAL 28
WAS 24, PHI 20
SL 16, TB 17
SD 17, NYJ 21
TEN 17, GB 24
MIN 17, HOU 27
CLE 13, DEN 30
CHI 17, ARZ 13
NYG 24, BAL 27
SF 20, SEA 24
 
I'm not picking scores, but will pick games later. Need to look at the injury reports first.

AP Power Rankings aren't out yet (later today). But BR has theirs out. They have SF on top, followed by Denver, NE, GB, Hou, ATL and Sea.

I like their article on teams peaking at the right time better. They like Washington, Seattle and Dallas as teams on the real up. They also say that Russell Wilson, not RGIII or Andrew Luck looks like the ROY. If he can keep up his level of play, I have to agree. This week's Seattle-SF game, and the following week's Wash-Dallas games will be epic.

I'm guessing Cousins will start against Philly, but RG3 will suit up and be ready if they fall into trouble. But Shanehan isn't stupid like Rex Ryan, he's a much more savvy planner, so who knows?

As I said a dozen posts ago, I also like GB's chances if they can heal. Clay Matthews played limited this week, and should be back to full strength soon, and if they can get Nelson and Woodson back, and some other injured players to heal, they could be very dangerous. But those "if's" may not come in time to gel.

I actually think NE's losing to SF may have actually helped them. Despite starting like a blowout, the game was close and it was turnovers that were the real difference. In Decembers past NE steamrolled opponents and then ran out of steam in the playoffs, or SB. This may help them focus more so they don't peak in December, but in January/Feb. Gronkowski back likely in week 17. What, you forgot about him?

Despite the blowout loss to Atl, I still would not write the NYG off. They like to look at it like if they can get into the "tournament" they can win the SB, and they've done that twice now. But I've been involved and watching sports for nearly a half century and can tell you rarely can a team just turn a switch on like that. Both of their playoff runs and SB wins involved elements of luck, and that you can't count on. But the Giants usually have good pass protection, receivers, and can defend the pass, and play well late in games, all keys to winning big games. Pittsburgh is the same way, but they may just be too banged up at this point.

I too won't be surprised if Denver loses in the playoffs and PM had a mediocre game in the process. He's a great player, will end up in the HOF, but not a great playoff player. I question Denver's ability to defend the pass against a top QB (Brady anyone?), and come from behind late.

The Cowboys have thankfully barred Brent from the sidelines for the rest of the season.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
What a season.

I can't wait till the carpetbagger gets off the plane in the Crescent City! They are waiting to give him a great big welcome. ;)
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Despite the blowout loss to Atl, I still would not write the NYG off. They like to look at it like if they can get into the "tournament" they can win the SB, and they've done that four times now. But I've been involved and watching sports for nearly a half century and can tell you rarely can a team just turn a switch on like that. Both of their playoff runs and SB wins involved elements of luck, and that you can't count on.
Bo knows football, and Alpe too. :D
As we learned, and posted many times, the NYG are the most incredible lucky pro sports team ever. Now the fear is around the corner all the time that they might repeat it again. Oh no....

Alpe d'Huez said:
I too won't be surprised if Denver loses in the playoffs and PM had a mediocre game in the process. He's a great player, will end up in the HOF, but not a great playoff player.
Again, Alpe knows football...
As said, that´s the reason (great RS-QB, but not in the PO) i don´t have PManning in my T-5, never will...
 
They like to look at it like if they can get into the "tournament" they can win the SB, and they've done that four times now.
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.

As we learned, and posted many times, the NYG are the most incredible lucky pro sports team ever.
Maybe. But the baseball Cardinals give them a good run in that department.

actually think NE's losing to SF may have actually helped them. Despite starting like a blowout, the game was close and it was turnovers that were the real difference.
Agree. NE has to feel good that they put up 34 points and more than 500 yards against what was supposed to be one of the best defensive teams in the NFL. The 49ers had not allowed more than 27 points in a string of nearly 30 regular season games, going back to the beginning of 2011. I still don’t know what happened, four TDs in eighteen minutes by a passing team in cold, wet weather seems impossible to believe, except the 49ers seem to have a tendency to relax if not challenged. It's encouraging that they generally play their best against good teams, but drop their guard against (perceived) lesser teams (Vikings, Rams, even the NYG were not considered that good when they played the 49ers earlier in the season).

And the 49ers left a lot of points on the table early in the game, with the missed FG, turnover, failed 4th down conversion, ran out of time on 3d and goal. Could easily have scored 50. One big concern of the team now has to be Akers, who clearly is not the kicker he was last year. For a team that has had problems getting into the EZ when in the red zone, that could really hurt them in the playoffs. It seems he is no longer reliable at distances over 30-35 yds.

I too won't be surprised if Denver loses in the playoffs and PM had a mediocre game in the process. He's a great player, will end up in the HOF, but not a great playoff player.
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.

This week's Seattle-SF game, and the following week's Wash-Dallas games will be epic.
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.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
woodenswan said:
i actually feel sorry for Sanchez at this point.. just embarassing..
Just brutal. Sanchez actually had a lower QB rating for the game than Tebow. But in fairness to Sanchez, Tebow only had five plays in which to muck things up. Mercifullly the Jets have announced Greg McElroy as the starting QB next week, which should spare Sanchez further humiliation. Not that being benched isn't humiliating, but... it's all relative. :D

As Alpe pointed out, Seattle v. San Francisco will be the game to watch. I'm picking the 49's, but only just.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Merckx index said:
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.

Merckx index said:
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.

Merckx index said:
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)


Merckx index said:
Has anyone else noticed how similar the Niners and Seahawks are?
Yes. It´s all calculated in my pick. :D
May you join this week?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
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
 
Merckx index said:
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.
 
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.

Merckx index said:
...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.

Pazuzu said:
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.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
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.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Here is a very good article about the life of backup QBS.
http://info4students.com/time-for-a-new-nfl-backup-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 can´t 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. That´s amazing, given the facts described in the linked article.

Conclusion: "Star"-QB´s 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.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
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... :p

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...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
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 isn´t enough. It´s not even close. It´s like i practise potting balls (in billards) only mentally, or thinking of how i (had to) pitch my curveball. It just don´t cut it. It can´t work.
... Practise makes perfect!
Anyway, it´s 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... It´s 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 i´ll 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...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY