2020 Miscellaneous NFL News

[jerichoholicninja]

On the one hand, football coaches are dinosaurs reluctant to change. On the other hand, look at the evolution of offensive and defensive schemes over the last decade or two and the introduction of "hybrid" players that can play multiple positions. They're open to change about some things.

[OldHeidelberg]

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.

 

 

I just looked it up and found this, sounds like the FG was the way to go? They make it sound like a wash but that is only in the case that they convert either way, the FG has a much higher probability than 4th and 3 I would think. Maybe I am reading it wrong but even without the numbers the FG seems like the obvious choice to me:

 

According to ESPN Stats & Information, the win percentage had the Cowboys made the field goal would have been 47.4%. Had they converted, the win percentage was 47.2%. So basically a wash. But also according to ESPN Stats & Information, McCarthy never went for it on fourth down when down by three in the fourth quarter and inside the opponents’ 30. He kicked a field goal six times, making five.

[HiAndTight]

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.

 

 

Yeah, but hasn't McCarthy said several times the reason he didn't go for 2 there was he didn't have the WR'ers available? Janis had just caught two Hail Marry's(and was a brutal route runner) and they were down to I think him and Abbrederis.

 

Analytics don't always take factors like that into the equation.

[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.

 

 

Yeah, but hasn't McCarthy said several times the reason he didn't go for 2 there was he didn't have the WR'ers available? Janis had just caught two Hail Marry's(and was a brutal route runner) and they were down to I think him and Abbrederis.

 

Analytics don't always take factors like that into the equation.

 

I never heard him say that, but maybe he did. I don't really buy that if that's his explanation, though. If you want to argue that your chances are converting are less than they would be at full strength, sure, I agree, but you still have 11 professional football players. They had Lacy. They had TEs. A QB draw or HB draw is a possibility. They had options.

 

Besides, those are the same guys you are going to be down to for OT as well. You can't convert one play for 2 yards but expect to drive 80 yards in OT for the win instead?

 

Either way, I seriously doubt MM would have had the stones to try the 2 even if he was at full strength.

[HiAndTight]

 

I never heard him say that, but maybe he did. I don't really buy that if that's his explanation, though. If you want to argue that your chances are converting are less than they would be at full strength, sure, I agree, but you still have 11 professional football players. They had Lacy. They had TEs. A QB draw or HB draw is a possibility. They had options.

 

Besides, those are the same guys you are going to be down to for OT as well. You can't convert one play for 2 yards but expect to drive 80 yards in OT for the win instead?

 

Either way, I seriously doubt MM would have had the stones to try the 2 even if he was at full strength.

 

 

Well...he said he would have. I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I get not trusting your WR'ers when you're likely running a play that relies on timing and you have two available WR'ers who just used a lot of energy running back to back Hail Marry's. Don't think you try a draw with Rodgers. Maybe roll him out and give him the option.

 

At TE it was just Richard Rodgers IIRC.

 

Like I said...I get the argument, but analytics don't take into account that you've got 45 seconds to recover, get the play in and that you're running it with your 5th and 6th WR'ers.

[homer]

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.

 

 

You'll love this from Packers beat reporter Rob Demovsky:

 

 

 

He got in a slap fight on twitter with Peter Bukowski about DVOA today. Rob probably thinks ERA is a good barometer for a pitcher too.

[LouisEly]

The problem with analytics and football is that football is so much more of a team sport than baseball or basketball. You have eleven variables on each side of the ball on every play; one guy not doing his job can have a major impact on every play, one starter out can affect the outcome of every play. Baseball is about pitcher vs. batter, batted ball vs. fielder. It doesn't matter what the LF is doing if the ball isn't hit towards him; it only matters the few plays the ball is hit towards him. It doesn't matter what the other eight batters are doing on every pitch because they aren't involved; football players on the field are involved in almost every play.

 

There are way, way more variables in football to account for than in baseball or basketball.

[nodakfan17]

Plus the sample size is much lower in the NFL (256 games per year) vs 1,230 (NBA) and 2,430 (MLB). I still think analytics in football are useful, but they have limitations.

[homer]

Plus the sample size is much lower in the NFL (256 games per year) vs 1,230 (NBA) and 2,430 (MLB). I still think analytics in football are useful, but they have limitations.

 

Both good points from you and Lou. I would point out though that each play in football can be considered a separate event so a QB who has 650 attempts and 20 rushes ends up with 670 events - not too dissimilar from a baseball player with 700 plate appearances for a season. Obviuosly a RB or WR or TE will have less. Speaking only about DVOA, football outsiders admits that it's limited by the fact that a football play is dependent on more than one player.

 

I think, though, that the probabilities related to 4th downs, field goal attempts and end of game decision making is still very valid.

[nate82]

A fan tested positive for COVID-19 that attended the Chiefs game last week.

 

Countdown to the NFL going 100% no fans in 3....2....1.......

[nodakfan17]

I probably understand the salary cap better than the average NFL fan, but I have no idea how the Rams can keep signing everyone. Initially, I thought they were spending to help put down roots in LA and sell tickets in their new stadium. Now I’m just confused.

[PinaMadness]

I was really enjoying watching the Vikings fall to 0-2 and then I saw #TankForTrevor trending. Now I'm scared to death.

[adambr2]

A fan tested positive for COVID-19 that attended the Chiefs game last week.

 

Countdown to the NFL going 100% no fans in 3....2....1.......

 

I mean there were like 17K people there. I think the odds were pretty good that someone was going to get it in the next week. I'd be shocked if it was only one.

 

Unless they start leading to outbreaks I don't see how one fan ending up with it leads to anything.

[Fear The Chorizo]

A fan tested positive for COVID-19 that attended the Chiefs game last week.

 

Countdown to the NFL going 100% no fans in 3....2....1.......

 

And several thousand chiefs fans who didn't go to the game tested positive in the last week or so, im sure.

 

Therefore, nfl stadiums are safer than real life, so get more fans in the stands i guess?

[nate82]

A fan tested positive for COVID-19 that attended the Chiefs game last week.

 

Countdown to the NFL going 100% no fans in 3....2....1.......

 

I mean there were like 17K people there. I think the odds were pretty good that someone was going to get it in the next week. I'd be shocked if it was only one.

 

Unless they start leading to outbreaks I don't see how one fan ending up with it leads to anything.

 

The last part was more tongue in cheek and more along the lines of the knee jerk reactions that have happened so far this year. I am certain that when the teams that don't have fans in attendance see this they are going to be more cautious and probably extend their no fan rules if another situation happens which it will.

[homer]

 

It will be lost in the post-game narrative, but if the Cowboys didn't go for 2 and fail early, they may have lost the game. By playing hurry up later on knowing they still needed 2 more scores, they gave themselves a chance to win.

 

Why going for 2 early makes sense.

[homer]

Justin Herbert looking pretty darn good for the Chargers.

 

Chargers D looks legit too. So far anyway.

[PinaMadness]

 

It will be lost in the post-game narrative, but if the Cowboys didn't go for 2 and fail early, they may have lost the game. By playing hurry up later on knowing they still needed 2 more scores, they gave themselves a chance to win.

 

Why going for 2 early makes sense.

Yeah, I just don't buy it. It takes a high degree of luck to win games two scores down late, and that's exactly what the Cowboys got. Nine times out of ten you lose those games.

[PinaMadness]

Justin Herbert looking pretty darn good for the Chargers.

 

Chargers D looks legit too. So far anyway.

I got Hill and Watkins starting in my fantasy league in a close game. It would be nice if they could combine for more than 0.9 point before halftime.

[HiAndTight]

 

It will be lost in the post-game narrative, but if the Cowboys didn't go for 2 and fail early, they may have lost the game. By playing hurry up later on knowing they still needed 2 more scores, they gave themselves a chance to win.

 

Why going for 2 early makes sense.

 

 

It never makes sense to me when teams need that 2 point conversation later in the game and they wait until what they hope will be their NEXT TD. Go for it now so you know if you need it or not.

[adambr2]

 

It will be lost in the post-game narrative, but if the Cowboys didn't go for 2 and fail early, they may have lost the game. By playing hurry up later on knowing they still needed 2 more scores, they gave themselves a chance to win.

 

Why going for 2 early makes sense.

 

 

It never makes sense to me when teams need that 2 point conversation later in the game and they wait until what they hope will be their NEXT TD. Go for it now so you know if you need it or not.

 

Yep, I agree. There's too much focus on making it a "1 score game". Well, 8 points is not 1 score unless you get the 2. It's an illusion of false security to be down 8 instead of 9. It is not a "1 score game" and I'm not even sure why it's called that. It literally has less than a 50% chance of being a 1 score game.

 

If you need something with a 50 percent probability to happen and something with a 94% probability to happen, it does not make your overall odds of accomplishing both better if you get the 94% out of the way first.

[adambr2]

 

It will be lost in the post-game narrative, but if the Cowboys didn't go for 2 and fail early, they may have lost the game. By playing hurry up later on knowing they still needed 2 more scores, they gave themselves a chance to win.

 

Why going for 2 early makes sense.

Yeah, I just don't buy it. It takes a high degree of luck to win games two scores down late, and that's exactly what the Cowboys got. Nine times out of ten you lose those games.

 

The Cowboys scored two touchdowns late in the game down 15.

 

They made the extra point, and missed the two, therefore they were still down two. What sequence those two events occurred in does not change the outcome. If they would have made the XP first and then missed the 2, the onside kick would have still been required regardless.

 

I am actually glad to see Mike McCarthy approach it the way he did. The MM I knew does it the XP way first every time.

[homer]

Justin Herbert looking pretty darn good for the Chargers.

 

Chargers D looks legit too. So far anyway.

I got Hill and Watkins starting in my fantasy league in a close game. It would be nice if they could combine for more than 0.9 point before halftime.

 

Well you got a Hill TD and now OT so hopefully you are caught up.

[adambr2]

My fantasy team is a trainwreck. I started Wentz over Tannehill, MVS over Robby Anderson, Gurley over Fournette ...every button I push is the wrong one.

[adambr2]

Harrison Butker has ice in his veins.

 

53 year FG to win in OT...money. Oh wait, false start.

 

58 yard FG to win in OT...money. Oh wait, timeout.

 

58 yard FG to win in OT....money.