National Football League Thread

[PsychicVibe]

10 minutes ago, TheLakota said:

 

Vehemently disagree. Per stats thru 2003, the team that won the toss has won 52.0% of the time. 

 

So when I see a team go for the win rather than the tie as the clock winds down in a highly competitive match, I see a coach that is self aware and confident his offense can win the game there and now as opposed to leaving it to chance to decide who gets the ball in OT. 

 

Nothing but respect for teams that go for two, even if they don't succeed. 

 

Moreover, teams playing in in games following an overtime game are 5-13 straight up and 7-10-1 against the spread. There's something to be said for going for the victory in regulation play rather than getting beat up in OT.

[SnowxSakura]

21 minutes ago, majob said:

The guy is nursing an injury to his throwing hand, not that it excuses him entirely but an injury like that is going to have an definite impact on his performance

Doesn't help the backup has been out either due to concussion protocol 

[Cassylvania]

4 hours ago, TheLakota said:

Vehemently disagree. Per stats thru 2003, the team that won the toss has won 52.0% of the time. 

 

So when I see a team go for the win rather than the tie as the clock winds down in a highly competitive match, I see a coach that is self aware and confident his offense can win the game there and now as opposed to leaving it to chance to decide who gets the ball in OT. 

 

Nothing but respect for teams that go for two, even if they don't succeed. 

 

Fair enough. There is some credence to it too, with so many PAT misses this year, and maybe you're banking on the defense being tired from that last drive. I just think if you're going to take chances, maybe do it earlier in the game, rather than potentially sacrificing a win or tie. I'd love to see more teams go for 2 in the first half.

 

Another questionable call -- one that actually succeeded, so it won't be discussed -- is the Vikings going for a TD pass on 4th and 8 on the Jets' 34 yard line, up by 10, with about five minutes left in regulation. Now, I didn't watch the game, but it looked like it was a lot closer than the final score indicates. Had they failed there, the Jets would've had plenty of time on the next drive to make it a one-score game. But that's a risky call I can get behind, because it's a long field goal, the weather conditions aren't great, and you have a defense that is supposed to be pretty good. (Hopefully the injury to Rhodes isn't serious.) The next game has me worried, though. Just like the Vikings were probably expected to beat the Eagles, I think the Saints have been eyeing this one for a long time. Maybe Everson and Cook will be back...?

Edited October 24, 2018 by Cassylvania

[acasser]

3 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

 

Neither the Giants nor the Titans were getting beat so badly yesterday that they couldn't have won in OT. The Titans dominated the second half, and the Giants marched right down the field at the end of that game to score a TD. If either of them had kicker problems or an in-game injury to a key player, I could maybe understand the call, but it just screams of, "We're not very good this year. Let's just gamble on this next play." Not exactly a winning philosophy.

 

 

I can't speak to the Titans because I seldom even have the opportunity to watch them and evaluate what they may or may not be doing.

 

As for the Giants?  Ignore how they were marching up and down the field in the 4th quarter because Atlanta was trading yardage and some points for time -- that's something you can afford to do when you're up two touchdowns at that point in the game.  The Giants simply don't score a whole lot in the way of points and they haven't under their last three Head Coaches (if you count last year's interim guy in the mix).  They've got a bad quarterback and a lousy offensive line, which makes all their weapons at the "skill positions" less relevant.  Their special teams aren't particularly "special".  Their defense is prone to not making the timely stop.  They're precisely the sort of team that should be going for two points and the win instead of the tie because they have trouble sustaining drives and scoring points against defenses that are playing at full gear.  Their defense often gets shredded, and they find new and interesting ways to lose on a weekly basis.  And their playcalling can be a mild disaster.

 

Your argument seems to say to me that only good teams that are confident in themselves should go for two in that spot and try to win the game immediately.  But it's precisely those teams that can take the extra point and play for overtime because they're good enough and confident enough to win in extra time.  Whereas teams that aren't so good and confident probably should gamble it all on a single throw of the dice, especially if they have a play design that they're confident in.  Because a 50/50 chance (or something close) is probably better than risking something disastrous happening in the closing seconds and/or playing extra time with a team that's better than them.

[PerryToxteth]

3 hours ago, TheLakota said:

 

Vehemently disagree. Per stats thru 2003, the team that won the toss has won 52.0% of the time. 

 

So when I see a team go for the win rather than the tie as the clock winds down in a highly competitive match, I see a coach that is self aware and confident his offense can win the game there and now as opposed to leaving it to chance to decide who gets the ball in OT. 

 

Nothing but respect for teams that go for two, even if they don't succeed. 

 

Don't forget about the new rule, however. Both teams get a possession these days if the first team can't score a TD.  I think that change, along with five less minutes, have increased the number of ties we've seen this year.

[Cassylvania]

2 hours ago, acasser said:

Your argument seems to say to me that only good teams that are confident in themselves should go for two in that spot and try to win the game immediately.  But it's precisely those teams that can take the extra point and play for overtime because they're good enough and confident enough to win in extra time.  Whereas teams that aren't so good and confident probably should gamble it all on a single throw of the dice, especially if they have a play design that they're confident in.  Because a 50/50 chance (or something close) is probably better than risking something disastrous happening in the closing seconds and/or playing extra time with a team that's better than them.

 

I don't think I said good teams should go for it. I said teams with kicker problems or unexpected injuries might consider going for it, if they feel they'd somehow be at a severe disadvantage trying to kick a PAT or winning in OT, but that's not the impression I got from watching the Titans. (The Giants, maybe, but I already said that was a better call because they at least would've had two chances for the conversion.) But even if all that were true -- and maybe it is, as the Chargers are a top three team in the AFC, in my opinion -- I find it hard to believe that the particularly play they ran had much of a chance to succeed.

 

I can understand gambling on a single play if you like what you see or you think your team is too gassed to survive a fifth quarter, but these are the kinds of decisions that people remember. Fortunately, this wasn't Hue Jackson or Marvin Lewis making the call. I think Vrabel can get away with it, for now.

 

At the end of the day, I don't think there's any shame in losing to a better team in overtime. The Browns seem to do it every week.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Cassylvania

[TheLakota]

40 minutes ago, PerryToxteth said:

 

Don't forget about the new rule, however. Both teams get a possession these days if the first team can't score a TD.  I think that change, along with five less minutes, have increased the number of ties we've seen this year.

 

All the more reason to go for it as the clock expires. 

[skidmarkgn]

I'm loving the aggressive nature being shown this year.  How many times over the past few years have we watched far too conservative coaches piss away leads and end up in overtime (or just straight up losing) by playing it too "safe" during the 4th quarter?  If you have a chance to win now instead of extending a game and hoping for a good coin-flip then absolutely go for it.  

[TheLakota]

18 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

I'm loving the aggressive nature being shown this year.  How many times over the past few years have we watched far too conservative coaches piss away leads and end up in overtime (or just straight up losing) by playing it too "safe" during the 4th quarter?  If you have a chance to win now instead of extending a game and hoping for a good coin-flip then absolutely go for it.  

 

Exactly. Now all the league needs to do is throw the prevent defense in the trash. 

[PsychicVibe]

6 minutes ago, TheLakota said:

 

Exactly. Now all the league needs to do is throw the prevent defense in the trash. 

 

As the great John Madden said, "All a prevent defense does is prevent you from winning."

[TheLakota]

7 minutes ago, PsychicVibe said:

 

As the great John Madden said, "All a prevent defense does is prevent you from winning."

 

[MidnightDragon]

What a dumbass.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000977700/article/broncos-qb-chad-kelly-arrested-for-trespassing

 

He was probably drunk or something.

[majob]

6 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

What a dumbass.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000977700/article/broncos-qb-chad-kelly-arrested-for-trespassing

 

He was probably drunk or something.

Well his career is over

[PerryToxteth]

7 hours ago, MidnightDragon said:

What a dumbass.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000977700/article/broncos-qb-chad-kelly-arrested-for-trespassing

 

He was probably drunk or something.

 

Oh, he was definitely high on something other than life. Check out the mug shot: 

 

[majob]

Lions trade the Giants a 5th round pick for Damon Harrison

 

Jesus what's up with the Giants FO, Harrison could have gone for a 4th or maybe a 3rd rounder

Edited October 24, 2018 by majob

[skidmarkgn]

4 hours ago, majob said:

Lions trade the Giants a 5th round pick for Damon Harrison

 

Jesus what's up with the Giants FO, Harrison could have gone for a 4th or maybe a 3rd rounder

 

Dammit, they get a run-stopper right before hosting Seattle.  Was cautiously optimistic about that game but now...  10 A.M start, a Seattle defense that's been vulnerable to guys like Stafford and now the Lions fix (well, help) their most exploitable weakness.  Tough game.

[Conker]

My Week 8 2018-19 NFL Tips

 

Texans over Dolphins

Eagles over Jags

Bears over Jets

Bengals over Bucs

Steelers over Browns

Chiefs over Broncos

Lions over Seahawks

Redskins over Giants

Panthers over Ravens

Colts over Raiders

Rams over Packers

49ers over Cardinals

Saints over Vikings

Patriots over Bills

[TheLakota]

9 hours ago, Conker said:

My Week 8 2018-19 NFL Tips

 

Texans over Dolphins

Eagles over Jags

Bears over Jets

Bengals over Bucs

Steelers over Browns

Chiefs over Broncos

Lions over Seahawks

Redskins over Giants

Panthers over Ravens

Colts over Raiders

Rams over Packers

49ers over Cardinals

Saints over Vikings

Patriots over Bills

 

Agreed on almost all, but don't sleep on Baltimore. That defense, especially their front, is legit. 

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

Some good plays on both sides, but I didn't expect the Dolphins to lose by that kind of margin.

[Conker]

3 hours ago, Avatar_Of_Battle said:

Some good plays on both sides, but I didn't expect the Dolphins to lose by that kind of margin.

Yeah i thought it would be closer, but with the way they played defense tonight it didn't surprise me how it blew out. whilst Texans to win and Watson slowly maybe regaining his form  before the injury

 

8 hours ago, TheLakota said:

Agreed on almost all, but don't sleep on Baltimore. That defense, especially their front, is legit. 

Yeah there defense is just amazing, honestly for me it was the hardest one to pick between, both teams playing good atm

[starcrunch061]

On 10/23/2018 at 9:07 PM, Cassylvania said:

 

I don't think I said good teams should go for it. I said teams with kicker problems or unexpected injuries might consider going for it, if they feel they'd somehow be at a severe disadvantage trying to kick a PAT or winning in OT, but that's not the impression I got from watching the Titans. (The Giants, maybe, but I already said that was a better call because they at least would've had two chances for the conversion.) But even if all that were true -- and maybe it is, as the Chargers are a top three team in the AFC, in my opinion -- I find it hard to believe that the particularly play they ran had much of a chance to succeed.

 

I can understand gambling on a single play if you like what you see or you think your team is too gassed to survive a fifth quarter, but these are the kinds of decisions that people remember. Fortunately, this wasn't Hue Jackson or Marvin Lewis making the call. I think Vrabel can get away with it, for now.

 

At the end of the day, I don't think there's any shame in losing to a better team in overtime. The Browns seem to do it every week.

 

Late to the party, and I have no dog in the fight, but I've read a lot about this play, and (tangentially), I find these people that are talking about the "basic math' of the situation (Football Perspective, e.g.) to be morons.

 

They equate 2 point conversions at any point in the game  to 2-point conversions late in the game down 14 points. We went through the same thing a few years ago with 4th down attempts., apparently equating a powerhouse team going for 4th and 1 against an undermanned opponent in the 1st quarter of a soon-to-be blowout with a team that is within 3 points of an evenly-matched team going for 4th down instead of punting. There's nothing "basic" about the mathematics of these calls.

 

There are good reasons to go for 2, and bad reasons. Basic math is definitely one of the "bad reasons".

[Cassylvania]

2 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

There are good reasons to go for 2, and bad reasons. Basic math is definitely one of the "bad reasons".

 

I think we're seeing it a lot more now, with PATs no longer being a sure thing. But I think some coaches are trying to be a bit too bold with their calls this year. Like, why did Miami go for an onside kick last night, when they had just brought it a one-score game? You can consider stuff like momentum or trying to limit the number of offensive snaps for the other team, but I think it's just as important to consider what happens if you fail. In Miami's case, the kick failed (surprise, surprise), and the Texans scored a TD or the next play or so to put the game out of reach. Have we gotten to the point where coaches are simply giving up on being able to stop the other team from scoring? And these were two teams with the same record at the time, so it's not like they needed to resort to trick plays to win. (Although with the way Brock was playing last night, maybe they did...)

 

As for the Giants... With OBJ and Barkley, they have no reason to be as inept on offense as they are. Given two chances to convert, I think they would've succeeded at least once. The Titans, I'm not so sure about (Mariota was apparently hurt, and the play they called was questionable at best). If you kick the extra point and miss, or if you send the game to OT and lose there, I don't think many people are going to question your coaching decisions by saying, "You should've gone for 2 on that last play." But in a 16-game football season, I think you gotta realize that relying on too many low percentage plays is going to cost your team.

 

What I'd like to see from teams is more aggressive play in the first half, and smarter play in the second. That's usually what we see from perennial contenders, like the Patriots and Packers. Instead, it feels like a lot of teams are doing the opposite, and it's leading to some really bizarre games, like the one last night.

 

And yeah, statistics can be very misleading...not only because they equate plays that have little in common, but because rules are always changing. Personally, I'd much rather see a coach defend a call by saying it was a gut decision than, "That's what the chart said."

[acasser]

1 hour ago, Cassylvania said:

 

As for the Giants... With OBJ and Barkley, they have no reason to be as inept on offense as they are. Given two chances to convert, I think they would've succeeded at least once. The Titans, I'm not so sure about (Mariota was apparently hurt, and the play they called was questionable at best). If you kick the extra point and miss, or if you send the game to OT and lose there, I don't think many people are going to question your coaching decisions by saying, "You should've gone for 2 on that last play." But in a 16-game football season, I think you gotta realize that relying on too many low percentage plays is going to cost your team.

 

What I'd like to see from teams is more aggressive play in the first half, and smarter play in the second. That's usually what we see from perennial contenders, like the Patriots and Packers. Instead, it feels like a lot of teams are doing the opposite, and it's leading to some really bizarre games, like the one last night.

 

And yeah, statistics can be very misleading...not only because they equate plays that have little in common, but because rules are always changing. Personally, I'd much rather see a coach defend a call by saying it was a gut decision than, "That's what the chart said."

 

Regarding the Giants, there are two very good reasons why they are inept on offensive and have been for more than two years:  their offensive line is putrid, and they've got a lousy quarterback.  Some of it is undoubtedly intermingled, as the offensive line being unable to protect the guys behind it has probably accelerated the downfall of Eli Manning, but Manning has always had a far gaudier reputation than his play deserved.  For years, he got away with simply chucking balls up for grabs when he was getting swarmed and having receivers win the 50/50 battles.  That's no longer necessarily happening, and he's also taking an increasing number of sacks.  The interceptions were always an issue, but they can be glossed over by a lot of people when the team is winning.

 

Insofar as throwing the dice on a two-point conversion to win as opposed to an extra point and (potential) overtime?  If you're the lesser team in a matchup, and your goal is to win, you almost always want to to pick the option that increases the variance in outcomes and potentially shortens a game.  Because a superior team is far more likely to defeat an inferior team if you give them more time and more opportunities to do so.  It would be like flipping a coin that is unevenly weighted so that it lands in heads 60% of the time and tails 40% of the time:  You can get short(er) runs where tails still comes up far more frequently, but over a huge number of flips you're very likely to see a preponderence of heads.  So if you're flipping that coin and betting on tails, it's a series of wagers you want to keep going for a short period of time.

 

And a coach is always going to find a crutch, such as "that's what the chart said".  Because that allows him to pass off the blame elsewhere and try to keep his job when those gambles don't work, even if he went for it because "it was a gut decision".

[Nihiris-]

On 10/23/2018 at 6:00 PM, TheLakota said:

 

Wasn't that last season though? With what little I've ready about him it seems he's turned things around somewhat regarding his behavior. That said, this trade makes me mildly apprehensive. If only they could have made the Peterson dream a reality.

 

C'est la vie.

 

Yeah Landon Collins said he was a crappy teammate last season, but I guess things didn't get better in the end. I'm sure that locker room is pretty sour anyway with their record right now.

[skidmarkgn]

Thought there'd be no way in hell Pete Carroll was going to win that catch challenge, even after the explanation as to why it was a catch I'm still confused.  "Football move" is so freakin' hazy.