Skip to main content

stefaniawine posted:

Think about all time leader in Yards, Completions, and Touchdowns and he hasn't had a Pro Bowler to throw to until 3 years ago.

 

First Pro Bowl WR.  JImmy Graham sure made the pro bowl a few times during his time in NO, Gates too in San Diego when he was there if I remember correctly (twice maybe), and LT as well, but still it's a remarkable stat.  Peyton (sixhead) Manning would have had Eli's record and stats (minus the Super Bowls) with the level of talent Brees has had around him much of the year.  

Last edited by csm

My fault I guess, I thought I used a capital W and R, and I did not, maybe I was hoping just including 'wide' would be enough.  Oh Well.

I think the best summary of the week is that the two most exciting games featured four of the worst teams.  I didn't see any of those games.  Did anyone?

We were very busy on Saturday and I only caught bits of the early game.  I kept thinking I was seeing replays of Winston turning the ball over but it turns out those were live and I just happened to come in for each one.  Not as hard as it seems I guess.

The Niners are going to have a hard time in the playoffs if their Wide Receivers keep dropping open passes.  Speaking of which it looks like someone finally made the connection.   Copper was not on the field because Garret is dumb, he was not on the field because he was 4-12 on his targets.  You need your best players on the field on 4th down, not your best Fantasy players, your players who can actually catch a ball.

Thomas was 12-13 on his targets.  The Titans are a team no one is going to want to play in the playoffs.  They can rattle off 2-3 touchdowns while you're not looking.  I can easily see them getting dominated in a game against a team like the Pats or Ravens and still getting 21 points on 3 big plays to make a game of it.

The highlight of the Sunday night game was someone on the pregame actually calling out Gregg Williams for terrible coaching.  That was the quote: "terrible coaching".

The Packers defense is for real and they've kind of snuck up on everyone this year.

Congrats Irwin.  The defense doesn't get enough credit.  Last year I said the Ravens had the toughest defense I saw the Saints play against.  They gave up 24 points but every single play was brutal.  They play hard every down and punish offenses.  They will be tough to beat.

Loss # 8  That's it I promise, no more.  If it makes you feel any better, my Niners are most likely to regress like that next year.

 

Last edited by stefaniawine

From Paul/Stephania Wine:  "Congrats Irwin.  The defense doesn't get enough credit.  Last year I said the Ravens had the toughest defense I saw the Saints play against.  They gave up 24 points but every single play was brutal.  They play hard every down and punish offenses.  They will be tough to beat."

The Ravens offense is the only one in the league to score more than 500 points. (In 16 games, that means they average around 31 points per game). Their defense has given up the 3rd fewest points in the league.   I am not really an expert on football, but it is my perception that in a given game, if you score more points than the other team, you are likely to win.

A number of their starters will not play in the final game so as to avoid injury.  The game is meaningless to the Ravens, but meaningful to the Steelers.

irwin posted:

but it is my perception that in a given game, if you score more points than the other team, you are likely to win.

I've been meaning to get to this and finally wasted an hour this morning on it.   Point Differential (PD) is a stat that is completely accurate over a single sample size (one game) and terribly misleading over virtually every other sample size.

I first learned this in the mid 80's when the Niners had a couple 10-6 seasons with great PDs.  An analysis of the PD would say they were a top 5 team in the league both those years and both years they got spanked out of the playoffs in short and embarrassing fashion.  They were in fact an average team that ran up wins and PDs against a weak division and played 500 ball against the rest of the league.

This season has a cool situation with three teams, the Ravens, Cowboys and Charges all having PDs that are at the high end of what one would expect for their records.  Raves +231, 13 wins, Cowboys +78, 7 wins, Chargers +2, 5 wins.  One would expect the Cowboys to be about zero and the Chargers to be negative.

I tested two hypothesis.  First I eliminated the two highest and two lowest PDs from each team.  I was attempting to factor out lopsided games that would have an oversized effect on PD.  Results

Ravens 231 = 163 (Average 15.4 = 14.8)

Cowboys 78 = 51  (Average 5.5 = 4.6)

Chargers 2 = -17 (Average  0.1 = -1.6)

In each case the average PD dropped when factoring out the lopsided games but not enough to factor back to an expected average.  I should test three teams that under preformed PD, I suspect in those cases removing the lopsided games would move their averages in the other direction.  I could do more testing but I think the conclusion is lopsided games over the course of a season are a minor factor in PD.

Next I tested for PD vs opponents with winning vs losing records.

Ravens WInning = 112, 14.0 per game, Losing = 119, 17.0 per game

Cowboys Winning = 11, 1.4 per game, Losing = 71, 10.1 per game

Chargers Winning = -38, -6.3 per game, Losing = 49, 5.4 per game

It would be worth testing this over a larger sample size.  From this sample PD against teams with winning records looks to be a very accurate predictor of wins.  Based on the 14/g, 1.4/g and -6.3p/g one would expect the Ravens to have a lot of wins, the Cowboys to be about 500 and the Chargers to have a losing record, all of which are true.  PD on its own and PD vs teams with losing records does not correlate with the wins each team has across the sample.

Interesting because the Chargers PD has been cited as proof of 'bad luck' and the Cowboys as proof of 'bad coaching' but this analysis says each team performed exactly as expected.

mneeley490 posted:

Looking forward with trepidation to the Seahawks-49'ers game tonight. Seattle is limping in to the playoffs with multiple players out due to injuries (lost our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd string RBs in the past 2 weeks), but it'll be interesting to see if Marshawn Lynch has anything left in the Beast-mode tank. 

No fear.  49er's won

stefaniawine posted:
irwin posted:

but it is my perception that in a given game, if you score more points than the other team, you are likely to win.

I've been meaning to get to this and finally wasted an hour this morning on it.   Point Differential (PD) is a stat that is completely accurate over a single sample size (one game) and terribly misleading over virtually every other sample size.

I first learned this in the mid 80's when the Niners had a couple 10-6 seasons with great PDs.  An analysis of the PD would say they were a top 5 team in the league both those years and both years they got spanked out of the playoffs in short and embarrassing fashion.  They were in fact an average team that ran up wins and PDs against a weak division and played 500 ball against the rest of the league.

This season has a cool situation with three teams, the Ravens, Cowboys and Charges all having PDs that are at the high end of what one would expect for their records.  Raves +231, 13 wins, Cowboys +78, 7 wins, Chargers +2, 5 wins.  One would expect the Cowboys to be about zero and the Chargers to be negative.

I tested two hypothesis.  First I eliminated the two highest and two lowest PDs from each team.  I was attempting to factor out lopsided games that would have an oversized effect on PD.  Results

Ravens 231 = 163 (Average 15.4 = 14.8)

Cowboys 78 = 51  (Average 5.5 = 4.6)

Chargers 2 = -17 (Average  0.1 = -1.6)

In each case the average PD dropped when factoring out the lopsided games but not enough to factor back to an expected average.  I should test three teams that under preformed PD, I suspect in those cases removing the lopsided games would move their averages in the other direction.  I could do more testing but I think the conclusion is lopsided games over the course of a season are a minor factor in PD.

Next I tested for PD vs opponents with winning vs losing records.

Ravens WInning = 112, 14.0 per game, Losing = 119, 17.0 per game

Cowboys Winning = 11, 1.4 per game, Losing = 71, 10.1 per game

Chargers Winning = -38, -6.3 per game, Losing = 49, 5.4 per game

It would be worth testing this over a larger sample size.  From this sample PD against teams with winning records looks to be a very accurate predictor of wins.  Based on the 14/g, 1.4/g and -6.3p/g one would expect the Ravens to have a lot of wins, the Cowboys to be about 500 and the Chargers to have a losing record, all of which are true.  PD on its own and PD vs teams with losing records does not correlate with the wins each team has across the sample.

Interesting because the Chargers PD has been cited as proof of 'bad luck' and the Cowboys as proof of 'bad coaching' but this analysis says each team performed exactly as expected.

Point differential is actually a fairly accurate predictor or record. Bill Barnwell has done some good stuff on record expectancy based on a pythagorean theorem of point differential. Most of the huge outliers revert to the mean the next year.

Here is an article with a blurb on it.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story...season-bill-barnwell

Last edited by jburman82
jburman82 posted:
stefaniawine posted:
irwin posted:
 

Point differential is actually a fairly accurate predictor or record. Bill Barnwell has done some good stuff on record expectancy based on a pythagorean theorem of point differential. Most of the huge outliers revert to the mean the next year.

Here is an article with a blurb on it.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story...season-bill-barnwell

Guess what Jack - this made me feel old, because I remember Bill James first working on this around 1987 or 1988 and he was really focused on one run games as a future predictor.  It occurred to me that you were probably in grade school then.

I think what I came up with is a more likely a predictor of playoff performance this year, than overall performance next year.  I wish I had scores in some form I could easily work with them besides moving them into excel by hand.  I'd bet that the Eagles for instance probably have a better PD vs winning teams than the Seahawks, and if true they would be more likely to win, despite the much worse record.  Maybe I'll get a few hours to work on this, you never know.

If you've been reading along since the start I proposed that turnover margin is the biggest indicator of drastic change in record one season to the next.  A team that moves outside of it's five year average will correct the next year to their 5 year average (not zero).  I called the Bears, Browns and Niners record this year based on that.  My early call is next year the Niners will be much worse and the Bucs much better.  

If I get some time I'll run the numbers for the playoff teams and see how they do.

I usually skip writing about the playoffs.  I spend a lot of time hosting - made 18 Bloody Mary's during the Saints game - and that limits the serious watching.

Disappointed in the Saints game but not really surprised.  The strength of the team was defense and the defensive line.  Two DL starters on IR was too big a hole to fill.  They wouldn't have beat any of the remaining teams even if they did get past the Vikings.

Called the Bills 'good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to beat anyone".  Allen is football's Nuke LaLoosh, million dollar arm, 5 cent head.

The Eagles and Hawks were two pretty banged up teams and when you get to the final 12 health is as important as anything.  I am going to say: "Watch your chickens" now though, it was a great line.

Can the Packers beat a completely healthy Niners team after getting smacked around by them in the regular season?  Well Jimmy G was trying really, really hard to throw 3-4 interceptions against the VIkings before Shanny in effect benched him, at least the throwing part.  I think with the 3 QB's left, you need a QB you can count on to not turn the ball over.  Can he do that for two games in a row against top opponents?  I wouldn't put money on it, too risky.

I did put money on the Titans, both games.  I mean I called it on 12/24 that they could beat the Pats and Ravens.  The Pats game was easy.  I figured the Pats needed 25 points to win and cover and they hadn't scored more than 24 against a winning team all year.  The Titans have averaged over 30 points a game since they made the switch.  

I got 10 points in the Ravens game and that also seemed easy.  I knew they'd score at least 20 and probably 25.  I also figured Henry would grind the clock and that would force Jackson to throw more.  I did figure the Ravens would win but I thought it would be something like 24-28 or 21-27.

The Titans are looking more and more like the 1980 Raiders every game.  That team was an underdog in all 4 playoff games they won.  Same dynamic of changing out QB's early in the season, with Plunkett making the career comeback on that Raiders team.

The Chiefs run defense is terrible, and Henry should gain yards in bunches.  He'll also eat away clock and limit KC's possessions.  I'm tempted to take the 7.5 and let it ride.

Last edited by stefaniawine
irwin posted:
This year’s super bowl is the day before the Iowa caucuses.  Trump has already purchased time for advertisements during the Super Bowl.  (So had Bloomberg). So, in addition to advertisements for Bud Lite, there will be ads for Trump.
 
Since he is a horses’s ass, I suppose Trump will use the Clydesdales.

I'm surprised that "Mike" Bloomberg didn't buy up all the advertising space given he expects to spend $2 billion during his campaign.

Who wants political ads during the Super Bowl?

irwin posted:
This year’s super bowl is the day before the Iowa caucuses.  Trump has already purchased time for advertisements during the Super Bowl.  (So had Bloomberg). So, in addition to advertisements for Bud Lite, there will be ads for Trump.
 
Since he is a horses’s ass, I suppose Trump will use the Clydesdales.

Should do an over/under bet on number of lies in the commercial

flwino posted:
irwin posted:
This year’s super bowl is the day before the Iowa caucuses.  Trump has already purchased time for advertisements during the Super Bowl.  (So had Bloomberg). So, in addition to advertisements for Bud Lite, there will be ads for Trump.
 
Since he is a horses’s ass, I suppose Trump will use the Clydesdales.

Should do an over/under bet on number of lies in the commercial

I'm in for the over, whatever the line is!

csm posted:
thistlintom posted:

Who wants political ads during the Super Bowl?

I would prefer those over the same recycled 8-10 ads we get in Canada during the game.  By the second quarter i've seen them each so often, I don't want to buy any of the products. Ever. 

+1. Same with all sports broadcasts.

If I ever need a carpenter I will ensure that he or she is NOT a member of the Carpenters Union, just to punish them for their never-ending annoying ads. 

csm posted:
thistlintom posted:

Who wants political ads during the Super Bowl?

I would prefer those over the same recycled 8-10 ads we get in Canada during the game.  By the second quarter i've seen them each so often, I don't want to buy any of the products. Ever. 

 but for some reason I cant wait for the new season of the good doctor on CTV!!!!!

Well all things considered I think we ended up with the two best teams and the match up most not involved fans would want to see. With that said for anyone but fans of these teams this years playoffs were a complete bust and snoozer. When it all began we were looking at incredible match ups and both teams got in avoiding any real competition. Both teams left deserve to be there despite relatively easy paths earned in the regular season and made easier by upsets. It makes me sad to think what could have been.

Divisional round games we missed out on:

KC v. NE - a rematch up of last years conf championship. The aging GOAT vs the young gun many believe may eventually challenge his status

SF v. SEA - the rubber match of two well matched teams that split the season

NO v. GB - one last meaningful shoot out between Brees and Rodgers two of the all time greats

Conference Championship

KC v Balt - shoot out between to two top young mobile QB's changing the NFL game

SF v NO - rematch of 48-46 earlier season game decided on last drive. 

Sadly we got none of this. I sure hope we get a great SB. We have the right teams there for one.

bomba503 posted:

for anyone but fans of these teams this years playoffs were a complete bust and snoozer. 

I have to disagree.  More than half the games ended with one team only a score ahead of the other, including two OT games.  And the Titans upset of the Ravens and that Houston/KC game were lots of fun to watch.

bman posted:
bomba503 posted:

for anyone but fans of these teams this years playoffs were a complete bust and snoozer. 

I have to disagree.  More than half the games ended with one team only a score ahead of the other, including two OT games.  And the Titans upset of the Ravens and that Houston/KC game were lots of fun to watch.

It was a reverse playoffs really. The divisional and championship games are usually really good, but only one of those was remotely close at the end.  Still found all entertaining except the Packers 49ers game, though that was for personal reasons. 

bman posted:
bomba503 posted:

for anyone but fans of these teams this years playoffs were a complete bust and snoozer. 

I have to disagree.  More than half the games ended with one team only a score ahead of the other, including two OT games.  And the Titans upset of the Ravens and that Houston/KC game were lots of fun to watch.

Fun to watch is one thing. Memorable classic battles another and we were cheated out of those. In ten or even five years no one will be talking about any of these games like they will the SF -NO (kittle carrying his teams hopes on his back at the end)  or SF-SEA (greenlaws epic Goal line tackle) games in the regular season among others. There just aren’t any great story lines or fantastic finishes thus far. In the end the right two teams are left IMHO and hopefully we’ll get a classic finish to the season

Last edited by bomba503
bomba503 posted:
bman posted:
bomba503 posted:

for anyone but fans of these teams this years playoffs were a complete bust and snoozer. 

I have to disagree.  More than half the games ended with one team only a score ahead of the other, including two OT games.  And the Titans upset of the Ravens and that Houston/KC game were lots of fun to watch.

Fun to watch is one thing. Memorable classic battles another and we were cheated out of those. In ten or even five years no one will be talking about any of these games like they will the SF -NO (kittle carrying his teams hopes on his back at the end)  or SF-SEA (greenlaws epic Goal line tackle) games in the regular season among others. There just aren’t any great story lines or fantastic finishes thus far. In the end the right two teams are left IMHO and hopefully we’ll get a classic finish to the season

Gotta disagree again, re the KC/Houston game at least.  I think people will be talking about that game years from now. 

And remember, one reason people talk about games years later and because they are memorable is because they are rare.  If there were two or three memorable games every playoff season then there would be too many too remember!

Both the Championship games were very boring, the Niners worse than the Chiefs.  In both cases the losing teams hung on to a grossly failing plan on defense long after it should have been abandoned.  

The Titans just refused to rush more than 4 in any situation.  I mean Blake Bortles could have won that game given the 5-9 seconds Mahomes had to look down field.  As the game got later, it got worse.  You could argue it was damned if you do, damned if you don't, but by the 3rd quarter the Titans should have known it wasn't working.

I actually felt pity for the announcers in the Niners game, it was that bad to watch.  The Packers remained 100% committed to stopping Samuels and Kittle from beating them in the middle of the field the entire time Mostert ran away with the game 8 yards at a time.  Even into the 4th quarter the Packers stayed in that 4-3 zone base with the linebackers 5 yards off the line.

They in effect neutralized the biggest risk for the Niners, and that was having the ball in Jimmy G's hands.   The Chiefs used 46 and 8 men in the box to stop Henry, daring Tannehill to beat them.  The first time I remember seeing the Packers run 46 was deep in the 4th quarter and as soon as Kittle caught a pass, they were back in the 3-4 Zone.  I think that was around the 8 minute mark in the 4th.

Maybe it's the curse of Belichick and that infamous 23-3 deficit.  He was all in on stopping Matt Ryan, let those Falcons run all they want, it's a strategy he uses all the time actually.  Just shut down one thing and stick with it until the other team implodes in hubris.  It's like a game of chicken, who is going to cave first.  Shanahan has the most famous cave in Super Bowl history, I don't think you'll ever see him get away from something working ever again.

Anyway I'm not hosting for the Super Bowl, so if you find yourself wine tasting around here, you're invited to my neighbor Todd's annual party.  It's a short walk from our house and I'm tending bar.  There are 5 beers lined up on tap and I do margaritas and manhattans.  It's going to be a Niners heavy crowd.  

Actually watching the Niners game GB had a man on the runner almost everytime and usually behind the line of scrimmage. They simply could not tackle well. Re watch the game and you will see an endless stream of missed first tackles. There was no one else there after that with the Packers  in that 4-3 zone base with the linebackers 5 yards off the line.

bomba503 posted:

Actually watching the Niners game GB had a man on the runner almost everytime and usually behind the line of scrimmage. They simply could not tackle well. Re watch the game and you will see an endless stream of missed first tackles. There was no one else there after that with the Packers  in that 4-3 zone base with the linebackers 5 yards off the line.

You know I always take that challenge.  The whole game isn't available yet but I did rewatch the highlight package:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma9XORfw_bM

There's one single play where a Packer gets a single hand (while being blocked) on a 49er in the backfield.  Every other play in the highlights the Niner back is 8 yards downfield before contact.  Watch the position of the linebackers at 49 seconds of the 2nd and 4:48 of the third in particular.    They're 8-10 yards off the line of scrimmage.

That's one strategy to beat Zone Run, you put the linebackers so far back that they can evade the blocks coming from the lineman releasing on their double teams.  If that was the plan, it was clear by the 2nd quarter it was a huge fail.

To beat Zone Run you must prevent the O-line from getting their initial double teams.  If they are forced to lock up 1 on 1 then it eliminates the peel back blocks and the release to the second level blocks.  Watch the KC-TN highlights for how the Chiefs handled Henry.  In running situations they were in the 46 defense or variations of the 46 all the time.

Since we're way down in the weeds here I thought I'd put up a couple links to explain what the hell it is we're talking about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Zone_blocking_scheme

https://bleacherreport.com/art...he-zone-running-game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_defense

 

 

stefaniawine posted:
bomba503 posted:

Actually watching the Niners game GB had a man on the runner almost everytime and usually behind the line of scrimmage. They simply could not tackle well. Re watch the game and you will see an endless stream of missed first tackles. There was no one else there after that with the Packers  in that 4-3 zone base with the linebackers 5 yards off the line.

You know I always take that challenge.  The whole game isn't available yet but I did rewatch the highlight package:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma9XORfw_bM

There's one single play where a Packer gets a single hand (while being blocked) on a 49er in the backfield.  Every other play in the highlights the Niner back is 8 yards downfield before contact.  Watch the position of the linebackers at 49 seconds of the 2nd and 4:48 of the third in particular.    They're 8-10 yards off the line of scrimmage.

That's one strategy to beat Zone Run, you put the linebackers so far back that they can evade the blocks coming from the lineman releasing on their double teams.  If that was the plan, it was clear by the 2nd quarter it was a huge fail.

To beat Zone Run you must prevent the O-line from getting their initial double teams.  If they are forced to lock up 1 on 1 then it eliminates the peel back blocks and the release to the second level blocks.  Watch the KC-TN highlights for how the Chiefs handled Henry.  In running situations they were in the 46 defense or variations of the 46 all the time.

Since we're way down in the weeds here I thought I'd put up a couple links to explain what the hell it is we're talking about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Zone_blocking_scheme

https://bleacherreport.com/art...he-zone-running-game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_defense

 

 

Whateverdude. When’s the Chi-town trip? 

Paul

Not disagreeing on the coverage schemes, I just remember watching the first half and seeing a guy in position to make an open field tackle. Perhaps they were conservative in their approach knowing they had no one behind them but I remember screaming over and over at open field tackles that were not made. Dont have the game recorded and wont be rewatching. Im ready for the Big One and dont really care who wins. Im just hoping we get a better game then we have thus far in the post season. Its been a snoozefest 

Last edited by bomba503

Maybe later this Spring.  I can always put you up here, just need about 30 days notice to make sure the airbnb is clear.

I'm hoping for a better game also.  Last year was painfully boring, maybe the greatest dud all time.  I'm recording the game so I can rewatch it.  I'm just hoping that being at the bar doesn't mean I get stuck with that terrible character the :"I don't like football and am only at this party to jibber jabber about things no one cares about while they try and watch the game."  You know that guy.

well at least the Super Bowl lived up to my expectations. It was a good game that was much closer than the final score. The Niners defense did a great job containing Mahomes most of the night. but for the garbage time touchdown they held them to 24 points which is quite impressive.

Offensively the Niners just didn’t have enough gas in the tank with essentially a journey man QB. I wanted to see the game come down to the last drive. Jimmy took the field with two minutes and the full array of timeouts but I knew it was pretty much over. Would’ve much preferred to see Mahomes take the field in that situation but I guess you can’t have everything.  

 

Congratulations to the Chiefs and nice to see Andy finally get a ring. Congrats to Shady McCoy also even though he was inactive for the game

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×