|
Vaya con Dios!!! posted:I've forgotten the terms for them but I have noticed that mixed snap counts and hard counts seem to have disappeared. Is there a reason for this, am I just hallucinating? One thing I've noticed about the 49ers this year is that when they're playing poorly they seem to be getting owned on the OL a lot - defensive rushers and blitzers seem to regularly jump the snap - and it seems something simple like mixed snap counts could slow their step a little. San Diego used a ton of hard counts the last two weeks of the season and they worked splendidly against the Jets and Raiders
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
SteelAngel2000 posted:San Diego used a ton of hard counts the last two weeks of the season and they worked splendidly against the Jets and Raiders Maybe it's the coaching staff, then. I'm not saying I want them to go back to the days of constantly attempting to draw an offsides, but I've always thought mixed counts were good for keeping a little arrhythmia in a defense's step. Especially considering that the 49ers run a pretty slow offense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Kaepernick sucks pretty hard at line adjustments still, and the hard count is difficult to do because sometimes it fucks up your own guys as much as the other team. But yeah, take a look at how many timeouts the 49ers take within 5 seconds of the snap because Kaep can't call a new play. I think it's just part of the confidence he'll get. They've also added a new rule this year that the QB can be called for a false start if he fakes certain movements as part of the hard count, they got Gabbert for it earlier in the season
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:Kaepernick sucks pretty hard at line adjustments still, and the hard count is difficult to do because sometimes it fucks up your own guys as much as the other team. Totally agree on all points, though I'm pretty sure they were avoiding the hard counts with Smith as well. Is there any place that tracks this sort of thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:Kaepernick sucks pretty hard at line adjustments still, and the hard count is difficult to do because sometimes it fucks up your own guys as much as the other team. Of course Blaine Gabbert got called for a false start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
For flinching his hands towards the center while in shotgun formation. It was shameful on all counts
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is Points Scored a fairly irrelevant ranking for Offense without context. Points Against is somewhat more legitimate, since the defense is almost always trying to stop a score, but there seem to be a lot of times when the Offense's goal is not necessarily to be scoring as hard and fast as possible and it depends alot on what the Defense has been doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 11:24
|
|
|
MonsterUnderYourBed posted:Is it just me, or is Points Scored a fairly irrelevant ranking for Offense without context. Points Against is somewhat more legitimate, since the defense is almost always trying to stop a score, but there seem to be a lot of times when the Offense's goal is not necessarily to be scoring as hard and fast as possible and it depends alot on what the Defense has been doing. I don't get what you're arguing for here. If <let's just say Ryan Lindley> throws an INT caught at his own 20 yard line and the Cardinals' defense holds the opposition to a 3-and-out FG, how is that a black mark against the Cards' defense? The opposition scoring three points was basically a given. The opposing offense completely fails, yet the Cards' DEF takes the fall for allowing three points? I really have no idea what you're going after here, so please explain it more thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
My main point I think is that both metrics are pretty flawed, but the defensive metric is slightly less so given that from my experience there are more occasions where the Offence's primary goal is not "run up the score", than occasions where the Defence's primary goal is "block the score".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
I guess congratulations on figuring out that football is about scoring points vs preventing points? I mean, what are you looking for here? Is this a sloppily-phrased argument that ball-control offenses aren't always concerned with running up 50 points? If so, yes, you are right, but that philosophy is falling out of favor very quickly. Example: Chip Kelly is coming to some NFL team this year, and his goal is to score as many points as he can as quickly as possible, and he will keep doing so until he is up by 40 in the 4th quarter. Then he will put in his scrubs who will also try to execute his offense in the same manner. A good defense will stop opposing teams from scoring against them. In fact, a good defense will stop opposing teams from even mounting a drive (see Houston's DEF vs Cincy's OFF on 3rd downs tonight). Good offenses will score a lot of points. Good defenses will allow fewer points. These are the most brutal of NFL stats. This is how games are won. Even when one team is extremely gifted in creating turnovers, the scoring is most likely left up to the offenses. I don't see how OFF or DEF PPG is a flawed statistic. If an offense is so lovely that they're consistently turning over the ball in a scoring situation to opposing defenses, I expect that will show up in the various stats. BTW, there are plenty of circumstances where defenses benefit from stats, like when the offense that has beaten them by 30 points takes three knees behind the line. Is that a defensive win? Seriously, I have no idea what "metrics" you're arguing against and your arguments against them. PPF? YPC?, YAC? Talk to us, what are the stats that you feel aren't relevant, and why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
My impression was that when they say things like X is the Yth ranked Offense in the NFL, it is done on a PPG metric. Which seems to be without context to the point of uselessness, seeing as Points scored don't win you games of football, points scored more than your opponent does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
MonsterUnderYourBed posted:My impression was that when they say things like X is the Yth ranked Offense in the NFL, it is done on a PPG metric. Which seems to be without context to the point of uselessness, seeing as Points scored don't win you games of football, points scored more than your opponent does. Quite often, people also use average yards given up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Hey not to backseat mod or anything but can we try not to be snarky dicks in the rookie thread? Does that help anything?MonsterUnderYourBed posted:My impression was that when they say things like X is the Yth ranked Offense in the NFL, it is done on a PPG metric. Which seems to be without context to the point of uselessness, seeing as Points scored don't win you games of football, points scored more than your opponent does. Really there's no single stat or number or metric, conventional or otherwise, that can tell you the whole story in context. Football is a game of too many variables and too few samples to really break down to a definitive ranking system. However while the offense's goal is at times to control the clock or the ball their ultimate goal beyond that is almost always to end up scoring points. Aside from very specific circumstances you're calling plays with the intention to advance the ball and end up with points. As a 100% ironclad infallible stat you're not going to find offensive PPG the determining factor of a team's ability, but across a whole season it tends to average out and give you some information, to be taken with other stats/metrics as well as the "eyeball test", that will help you determine a team's ability. For this purpose it's much more useful than yards given up, turnovers, TOP, etc. There's also point-differential, which is probably the most important conventional team stat, but that as well requires other information to infer anything "important".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Okay, thanks heaps for those two insights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
I believe one of the advanced stat places - probably Football Outsiders - keeps track of points scored by starting field position. I think your own 20 is around 1 point, your own 1 is -1, their 40 might be 4.2. It would be a short hop from that to finding out if a team over or underperformed given their starting field position, which would actually make sense for comparing team to team rankings. Is this ringing a bell with anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Coco13 posted:I believe one of the advanced stat places - probably Football Outsiders - keeps track of points scored by starting field position. I think your own 20 is around 1 point, your own 1 is -1, their 40 might be 4.2. It would be a short hop from that to finding out if a team over or underperformed given their starting field position, which would actually make sense for comparing team to team rankings. Is this ringing a bell with anyone? I think Advanced NFL Stats does something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
MonsterUnderYourBed posted:My main point I think is that both metrics are pretty flawed, but the defensive metric is slightly less so given that from my experience there are more occasions where the Offence's primary goal is not "run up the score", than occasions where the Defence's primary goal is "block the score". If the offense isn't trying to score than the defense isn't really trying to block the score, is it? This is such a fringe concern however. These stats are less good because a terrible offense can effectively score points on your own defense through lovely field position, low TOP, and directly through turnover. A very good offense can also make your defense look worse by scoring quickly. The same concerns exist the other way, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Jerome Agricola posted:I think Advanced NFL Stats does something like this. A few sites do, but those guys have the best implementation of it: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 01:18
|
|
man
|
During the Skins/Sawks game, when Cousins came in, they mentioned that Grossman was out, and they'd be screwed if Cousins got injured. What would have happened at that point, then? If he got crushed and couldn't play anymore, would they have thrown in the towel? Also, kind of stupid, but I was wondering at some point during the game, if say Wilson had rushed forward, got tackled, and then some D-back decided to just sit on him and keep him from getting up and making for the huddle, what kind of penalty would that be? I assume they wouldn't wait until the play clock was up to throw a flag for Delay of Game. Unsportsmanlike Conduct?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 10:24
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:During the Skins/Sawks game, when Cousins came in, they mentioned that Grossman was out, and they'd be screwed if Cousins got injured. What would have happened at that point, then? If he got crushed and couldn't play anymore, would they have thrown in the towel? Since Grossman was inactive, I'm guessing they'd have just run a Wildcat with Morris (or another WR/RB with any sort of passing experience) taking the snaps. A defensive player inhibiting a ball carrier from getting up for the purposes of running time off the clock is a defensive delay of game. I think the way that works is the officials stop the clock at the time they throw the flag for the offending action. Five yards against the defense, then the game clock is active again just before the snap. The offense could then just spike it with a loss of :01 from the game clock. I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere in this explanation and eagerly accept all criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
That would be delay of game, yes. The clock stops to enforce any penalty; the NFL has a rule that makes most end-of-half fouls start the clock on the snap, and in NCAA you can change when the clock starts after a penalty to avoid teams gaining an advantage by cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Why do college players want to be drafted #1? It just means you're going to play on the Browns, Chiefs, Bills or some other perennially bad team. Isn't it advantageous to be drafted around the bottom of the first, where you'll be joining an already good team?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Vaya con Dios!!! posted:Why do college players want to be drafted #1? It just means you're going to play on the Browns, Chiefs, Bills or some other perennially bad team. Isn't it advantageous to be drafted around the bottom of the first, where you'll be joining an already good team? It's prestige and more guaranteed money. E: Also virtually guaranteed playing time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:It's prestige and more guaranteed money. It can also mean getting credit for turning a team around. Aikman and Robo Manning were both no. 1 picks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
That makes sense for star players at star positions, how about a LT deciding not to enter the draft because he'll likely go mid to bottom of the first rather than top to mid because of another player at the same position who is marginally better? I could see how there are potentially thousands of different scenarios at play... might be a pointless line of questioning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Vaya con Dios!!! posted:That makes sense for star players at star positions, how about a LT deciding not to enter the draft because he'll likely go mid to bottom of the first rather than top to mid because of another player at the same position who is marginally better? The big thing is that most college football players who do not get drafted are capital F hosed. Not everyone can be a Bo Jackson or John Elway and just play baseball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:It can also mean getting credit for turning a team around. Both younger Mannings were no. 1 picks! e: and dad was a #2 overall pick, how about being the #2 overall pick and being outclassed by BOTH of your sons
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Both younger Mannings were no. 1 picks! Yeah but didn't Eli essentially do what VCD was talking about and refuse to play because the team was so awful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:Yeah but didn't Eli essentially do what VCD was talking about and refuse to play because the team was so awful? It was San Diego and he and Archie both expressed extreme reservations about him playing there. I don't know exactly how that worked out, just saw it on wikipedia the other day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:Yeah but didn't Eli essentially do what VCD was talking about and refuse to play because the team was so awful? Yeah the Chargers drafted him and he bitched until they traded him to the Giants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
drunk leprechaun posted:Yeah the Chargers drafted him and he bitched until they traded him to the Giants. See also: Elway being drafted by the Colts and Bo Jackson the Buccaneers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Really the whole way American sports hire rookie talent is extremely strange. Imagine if you got your degree to be an architect, and every architectural firm in the world had an agreement on which firm you had to go to, and if you didn't want to go there, you couldn't work at all. As a sports fan, I love the parity it creates. As a defender of labor rights though, its extremely problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Also, regardless of how good of an architect you are, you have to spend at least three years architecting for free for a company being compensated only with training in a most likely, totally unrelated field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Both younger Mannings were no. 1 picks! Only two of his sons. Granted Cooper had medical issues and played b-ball and is now an absurdly rich man in energy in New Orleans but whatever ONLY TWO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Also, regardless of how good of an architect you are, you have to spend at least three years architecting for free for a company being compensated only with training in a most likely, totally unrelated field. Is there really a three year requirement? I was wondering why, say, Johnny Manziel didn't just say "gently caress this college thing, ima getting paid."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Only two of his sons. Granted Cooper had medical issues and played b-ball and is now an absurdly rich man in energy in New Orleans but whatever ONLY TWO.  But yeah, the only two football-capable sons 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Saw your pre-edit and was like Yeah it felt like way too big of a slam on Cooper especially given his success in life despite his crippling case of Manning-Big-Head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:Is there really a three year requirement? I was wondering why, say, Johnny Manziel didn't just say "gently caress this college thing, ima getting paid." Yup, only players who have been out of high school for at least three years are eligible for the NFL draft. Most recently mentioned due to that sophomore who obliterated a running back a week back and looks like a young Mike Singletary. More famously by Maurice Clarett who attempted to sue the league over it after needing to leave college for... many reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Barudak posted:given his success in life despite his crippling case of Manning-Big-Head. I would hardly consider the ability to control the minds of the weak willed a negative in life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Yeah it felt like way too big of a slam on Cooper especially given his success in life despite his crippling case of Manning-Big-Head. He's like a first-team all-white collar dude though
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 23:35
|
|