2020 Miscellaneous NFL News

[nodakfan17]

I’m 100% behind Dak, but Skip is still entitled to an opinion. I watched the clip expecting to be outraged, but Skip appeared pretty measured. Honestly, the dialogue between Skip and Shannon seemed healthy by daytime cable standards. Fox issued a statement afterwards affirming their support for mental health issues. I think this is a non-issue.

[owbc]

Skip Bayless is a dolt and a loud mouth. He's doing exactly what Fox pays him to do, which is stir up controversy and be an..... Expletive. I'm honestly not even sure if he really believes half of the things he says. He has the feel of a guy playing a character.. l He's being talked about, which is exactly what he wants, because now people are searching and replaying the video of what did Skip Bayless say about Dak Prescott?

 

Was it out of line? Sure. Was it absolutely insensitive and way off base? It absolutely was. Does Fox really care? Probably not.

 

I agree, Skip Bayless is very good at what he does -- he's very close to being Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report. Which would actually be a great character for a sports-related show.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Skip Bayless is a dolt and a loud mouth. He's doing exactly what Fox pays him to do, which is stir up controversy and be an..... Expletive. I'm honestly not even sure if he really believes half of the things he says. He has the feel of a guy playing a character.. l He's being talked about, which is exactly what he wants, because now people are searching and replaying the video of what did Skip Bayless say about Dak Prescott?

 

Was it out of line? Sure. Was it absolutely insensitive and way off base? It absolutely was. Does Fox really care? Probably not.

 

I agree, Skip Bayless is very good at what he does -- he's very close to being Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report. Which would actually be a great character for a sports-related show.

 

Except that everyone who watched the Colbert Report was in on the joke.

[nodakfan17]

Skip Bayless is a dolt and a loud mouth. He's doing exactly what Fox pays him to do, which is stir up controversy and be an..... Expletive. I'm honestly not even sure if he really believes half of the things he says. He has the feel of a guy playing a character.. l He's being talked about, which is exactly what he wants, because now people are searching and replaying the video of what did Skip Bayless say about Dak Prescott?

 

Was it out of line? Sure. Was it absolutely insensitive and way off base? It absolutely was. Does Fox really care? Probably not.

 

I agree, Skip Bayless is very good at what he does -- he's very close to being Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report. Which would actually be a great character for a sports-related show.

 

Except that everyone who watched the Colbert Report was in on the joke.

[sarcasm]What joke?[/sarcasm]

[GAME05]

The more that teams are competitive or even SB contending with star QBs on rookie contracts the more it makes sense to pay big for position players. Bit of an instant team when you do only have that short window.

[homer]

Didn't realize there was a Misc NFL thread already....even though I started it. Merged.

[adambr2]

The more that teams are competitive or even SB contending with star QBs on rookie contracts the more it makes sense to pay big for position players. Bit of an instant team when you do only have that short window.

 

This is why I think Rodgers has 2 more years here and 2 only, no matter what Gute might say otherwise. It just doesn't make sense anymore to draft a QB and not plan to start them until Year 5.

[madbad2000]

I honestly had no idea that Skip Bayliss was still around. I have always hated his character that he tried to play on TV. It always felt so unnatural and it was hard to watch him. He does not do the "bad boy" role well at all. Im surprised he and Stephen A Smith have been around so long. I quite literally stop watching whenever either starts talking.

[nodakfan17]

It’s nuts to think the Patriots signed Cam Newton for $1 million, while the Bears had to give up a 4th round pick for Nick Foles and guarantee him $21 million.

[CheezWizHed]

That is why the patriots win super bowls and Chicago continues to "shuffle" since '85

[HiAndTight]

The more that teams are competitive or even SB contending with star QBs on rookie contracts the more it makes sense to pay big for position players. Bit of an instant team when you do only have that short window.

 

This is why I think Rodgers has 2 more years here and 2 only, no matter what Gute might say otherwise. It just doesn't make sense anymore to draft a QB and not plan to start them until Year 5.

 

 

It makes less sense to decide two years out that you're going to get rid of a HOF QB.

 

Lets see how Rodgers plays, lets see how Love plays. It's quite a bit more nuanced than looking at when Rodgers cap hit starts to let up.

 

If Rodgers is playing great, I don't think the Packers eat whatever it is...25 million because that's the year the Cap hit is low enough to save them money.

[adambr2]

The more that teams are competitive or even SB contending with star QBs on rookie contracts the more it makes sense to pay big for position players. Bit of an instant team when you do only have that short window.

 

This is why I think Rodgers has 2 more years here and 2 only, no matter what Gute might say otherwise. It just doesn't make sense anymore to draft a QB and not plan to start them until Year 5.

 

 

It makes less sense to decide two years out that you're going to get rid of a HOF QB.

 

Lets see how Rodgers plays, lets see how Love plays. It's quite a bit more nuanced than looking at when Rodgers cap hit starts to let up.

 

If Rodgers is playing great, I don't think the Packers eat whatever it is...25 million because that's the year the Cap hit is low enough to save them money.

 

HOF quarterback at this point is just a label. He hasn't played at that level in several years. We may not see it again.

 

Of course, yes, if he someone discovers the fountain of youth and plays at an MVP level again enough to make us a Super Bowl contender, plans change and Love is probably on the block. But as of right now, I don't think we gave up a 1st and a 4th for Love with the intention of him holding a clipboard for 4 years.

[wildcat83]

So teams can dress 55 guys this year? The full 53 and 2 off the practice squad?

 

Edit: Apparently not. Read they dress 48. What is the point of adding 2 off the practice squad on game day, just to then have to list 7 as not suiting???

[homer]

It’s nuts to think the Patriots signed Cam Newton for $1 million, while the Bears had to give up a 4th round pick for Nick Foles and guarantee him $21 million.

 

And he's not starting.

[nodakfan17]

So teams can dress 55 guys this year? The full 53 and 2 off the practice squad?

 

Edit: Apparently not. Read they dress 48. What is the point of adding 2 off the practice squad on game day, just to then have to list 7 as not suiting???

I think it gives teams a few more options for setting the game day roster in case a particular position group is impacted by injuries or COVID.

[HiAndTight]

So teams can dress 55 guys this year? The full 53 and 2 off the practice squad?

 

Edit: Apparently not. Read they dress 48. What is the point of adding 2 off the practice squad on game day, just to then have to list 7 as not suiting???

 

They just get two extra active players. They've got 10 more players they can play with in the event that guys test positive on game day.

[PinaMadness]

Time for the debut of the Dallas Packers.

[PinaMadness]

Imagine the long awaited opening of a brand new stadium and nobody there to see the game.

[Jimbo]

Anybody see Andy Reid go for it on 4th down inside his own 40 in the first half? That was not something you'd have seen 10 years ago.

 

I very much can see the NFL in 10, 20 years from now having stuff like this as the norm. Football is the most "risk adverse" of the sports as of now. It's my understanding real time metrics is being woven into in-game strategies to get away from this.

[homer]

Anybody see Andy Reid go for it on 4th down inside his own 40 in the first half? That was not something you'd have seen 10 years ago.

 

I very much can see the NFL in 10, 20 years from now having stuff like this as the norm. Football is the most "risk adverse" of the sports as of now. It's my understanding real time metrics is being woven into in-game strategies to get away from this.

 

Yep. It's why McCarthy went for it on 4th and short in the 4th quarter when a chip shot fg would have tied the game.

 

Even if you disagree with the choice we can all agree it makes for more interesting and exciting football. More fourth down plays are a good thing in that regard.

[adambr2]

I can't understand why it has taken so long for analytics to catch up to the NFL. NFL coaches have literally been defying math.

 

Imagine if you told a coach of any sport, "Option A gives you a 62% chance of winning this game. If you choose Option B, your chances go down to 53%."

 

You'd have to be crazy to pick B, right? Yet that's exactly what actual paid professional head coaches have been doing for years.

 

I still remember begging my TV screen for Mike McCarthy to go for 2 when Jeff Janis came down with the Hail Mary in the divisional round against the Cardinals and watching helplessly as Crosby trotted out onto the field.

[PeaveyFury]

There's a long-standing joke that NFL teams should have a 17 year-old Madden player beside them to make those in-game decisions, and I'm less convinced each year that it's that much of a joke. Statistically, teams should go for two, go for it on 4th, and onside kick more often.

[stoutdude04]

There's a long-standing joke that NFL teams should have a 17 year-old Madden player beside them to make those in-game decisions, and I'm less convinced each year that it's that much of a joke. Statistically, teams should go for two, go for it on 4th, and onside kick more often.

 

This reminds me of my freshman year of college. One of my best friends had Tecmo Super Bowl and I hadn't played since I was a kid, but him and his friends from High School played it daily. I wanted to play...he kicked my butt. After that first game every time I scored I went for an onside kick. I figured the only way I would beat him is if I got the ball more often than he did. Wouldn't you know it. The first time I tried this strategy I won.

 

Wasn't it Tomlin who said he would go for 2 every time if the numbers told him to? I haven't followed closely, but I wonder if he has gone for 2 more than the rest of the league?

[adambr2]

Since I brought up the Janis catch game and we are talking about analytics I'd like to use that as an example to show that analytics in many cases is really not that intimidating and should be easily understood by an NFL coach -- it doesn't take a math genius.

 

To estimate the probability of winning the game if you go for 2 after Janis' Hail Mary catch, all you need to know is the success rate of one event happening -- converting. It's an all or nothing proposition. Obviously the success rate of the 2 pointer fluctuates from year to year, but in 2018 and 2019 it averaged 49.4%. Even though I would prefer to round up because this percentage includes false attempts and thus is really likely over 50% (kneeldowns, botched XP snaps), I will round down to 49% for conservatism. So if MM goes for 2 there, he has a 49% chance of winning.

 

To estimate the probability of winning the game by kicking the extra point, you need two independent events to both occur -- you must successfully convert the extra point and then win in overtime. The success rate of the XP is about 94% since it was moved back to the 33.

 

Now, you have to figure out the odds of winning in OT. Winning in OT on the road in the playoffs is tough -- I can't recall the Packers doing it in the Rodgers era with numerous chances. But obviously, that doesn't mean it's 0.

 

But, it's obviously not a 50/50 proposition, either. With the average home team win rate being just a bit under 60% (though that number is higher in the postseason), I will again be very conservative and say the Packer have a 45% chance of winning if that game goes to OT, which it did.

 

So the independent chance of winning that game by going for the XP is 42.3% (45 * .94), (but in reality, it's probably a good deal lower). The chances of winning by going for 2 are 49%.

 

Obviously, there is some subjectivity to the numbers here, but the process and formula is correct. There really isn't a logical argument that can be made that going for 1 there gives you a better chance of winning than going for 2.

 

So there you have it. Mike McCarthy willingly lowered his chances of winning a divisional playoff game by 7% because he knew he would be seriously second-guessed if the still 51% chance that he would miss the 2 happened. And obviously, he's not alone.

 

Let's be smarter, NFL, and NFL media.

[homer]

I think it's because people just don't understand probabilities that well and psychology and emotion often run counter to the numbers.

 

I was on twitter during the Cowboy/Ram game last night and some account I follow that ranks NFL coaches was in an uproar because McCarthy went for it on 4th when he could have kicked a FG to tie. The analytics said to go for it. Same guy never said diddly about Rivera and Washington going for it:

 

With 7:26 remaining in the 4th quarter and the score tied at 17, Ron Rivera faced his first major decision as Washington head coach: Go for it on fourth-and-one from the Eagles' 4 or kick a 21-yard field goal

 

The other non play that had the analytics folks up in arms was when McVay punted on 4th and 1 from mid field late in the 4th quarter.