User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.5202 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
2) Billy Beane isn't dumb
3) ????
4) Billy Beane would fail in the NFL
Huh?
I'd love to see a Beane run NFL team. They'd go for it on 4th down more, pass up field goals for the chance of TDs, have a running back by committee, pass more in general, etc etc.
I wouldn't call Ray Ratto an "NFL writer." And when it comes to the NFL around here, it isn't the "NFL types" who come off as insecure.
I can't say the relative levels of free spending GMs in MLB and the NFL are that different. Splashy signings get more coverage than non-signings 100% of the time, so of course it looks like all NFL GMs are throwing the Monopoly money around.
Isn't that because of non-guaranteed contracts? A lot more teams would have pursued ARod if they knew they could cut him as soon as his production dropped.
Isn't what because of guaranteed contracts? My point is simply that in the NFL there are GMs who spend money foolishly and there are GMs that don't (though you wouldn't know it from the article), and I can't say that the ratio of smart to dumb is all that different from the same ratio in baseball.
That GMs seem to throw around Monopoly money. A 5 year, $100 million contract in the NFL does not obligate the team to actually pay $100 million.
Sure, for the GMs that actually throw around their Monopoly money. My point, again, is that not all of them do.
Tell that to the Patriots.
(And this from a Redskins fan!)
Cheating is the new "moneyball"?
Cheating is the old "moneyball" it's been around a lot longer.
Talk to the Baltimore Spiders, or the '51 Giants.
The reporting on this has been getting better. For most of the contracts signed in the NFL since Free Agency started, I've seen reported as 5 year, $100 Million, $32 Million guaranteed.
The NFL has just as many market inefficiencies as MLB does. The most important one is draft picks; for about ten years, top-five picks in the NFL have been dramatically overvalued, because the player you pick only has about a 50% chance of panning out and his contract requires a large portion of your salary cap.
Teams have wised up to this in the past three years, and teams with top-5 picks are now having a hard time giving them away, when just three years ago the Chargers got a king's ransom to trade down from #1 to #4. Studies show that the best value in the NFL draft is around the bottom of the first round and top of the second, because of the relationship between talent levels and contracts.
Yeah. Take Ben Roethlisberger's new contract, for instance. It's reported as 8 years, $102 million ($36 million guaranteed). I haven't seen the details yet, but I'll guarantee you the last two years are fluff, with a bunch of bonuses designed to force the Steelers to either release him or redo the contract. That's the way NFL contracts work. In this case, the 8 year/$102 million figure makes for a nice headline, but the real contract is going to be more like 6/$75.
Sure there is...it's called the NCAA.
Yeah, it's not like he was going to go to college to play football.
I really thought this would all blow up and come to light a few years ago when the 49ers, who are considered one of the more analytical teams out there, had the #1 pick in the draft with no real #1 prospect out there (and, worse, ended up choosing between two OK quarterback prospects, when QBs traditionally get a premium over their slot). I'm still convinced that the NFL told the Niners in no uncertain terms that if they were going to (i) dispel the myth of the draft creating parity and giving hope to the downtrodden, (ii) cause a fight over draft slot money with the union, and (iii) drop a turd in the punchbowl at THE annual NFL party event other than the Super Bowl, by passing until they got to a slot with which they were comfortable, there would be serious consequences.
Sooner or later that bubble's going to burst, because a bunch of teams are all going to refuse to use the first pick. An inefficiency that huge is going to explode eventually.
By the way, if anybody's interested and doesn't already know about them, Football Outsiders has the best statistical analysis of football to be found anywhere.
Plus, Alex Smith rates statistically among the very worst quarterbacks to ever have a real NFL career--worse than Ryan Leaf, just to pick one glaring example--yet the 49ers are still employing him. That's pretty strong evidence that they really did like him. His contract is no longer prohibiting them from releasing him, but they restructured it to keep him around last month.
Consider that only 7 starting QB's in the NFL last year were 1st rd picks and starting for the team that drafted them. There were also 7 undrafted QBs starting in the NFL.
Beane's not crafty. He's right-handed.
As far as we know, that's true. But so much depends on play-by-play analysis, and the best view is one the NFL only gives to teams and NFL Videos, so people like Football Outsiders don't have enough to really go in depth.
Moneyballin'!
Carry on.
Or you could just have good football people watch the games.
They'd go for it on 4th down more,
Yes, I'd expect Beane's teams to do their share of losing.
pass up field goals for the chance of TDs,
Like Belicheck in the Super Bowl
have a running back by committee,
Like Kevin Faulk and Laurence Maroney, or the Falcons old DVD backfield, or Brandon Jacobs and that kid from Marshall, or ....
pass more in general
Its going to be hard to pass more than NFL teams currently do.
This is actually what I'd expect of Beane
(1) Hire Jack Del Rio and tell him that he should go with a crimson red tie to project leadership
(2) Forego drafting college players and just sign new players from the semi pro leagues
(3) Waste higher draft picks and sign mediocre players because he doesn't want to pay signing bonuses
(4) Put tarps around the upper decks of football stadiums
(5) Sign the best punter and long snapper because he can get them cheaper than the best skill players and lineman and his fans can point out how he "stole them"
(6) Miss the Super Bowl to go to a Green Day show
(7) Sign the Oher kid from Mississippi so Michael Lewis would write another book fellating Beane
(8) Sign Jared Lorenzen as his starting QB, at least until a fatter QB comes along
(9) Place the franchise tag on his receiver with 10 catches while letting an Ocho Cinco go to free agency.
(10) Trade a Brady or Roethesberger for 20 players that he will cut, and one that will just be the sixth cornerback on a dime package
(11) Complain that his players actually get injured
(12) Never win the Super Bowl, but have plenty of people talk about how his teams are competative
(13) Line up in the wishbone offense with 2 tackles in the backfield
(14) Have the lowest attendance in the NFL
Where did you get that info? Actually, drafting quarterbacks is one of the most reliable things NFL teams do. Exactly half the current starting QBs in the league (16 out of 32) were first round picks, most of them high first round picks. And that number is low, compared to the last few years; for most of the present decade, the numbers were more like 19 or 20 out of 32. Matt Ryan will probably start immediately for whoever drafts him, making it 17 out of 32. Only three quarterbacks projected to start next year (Tony Romo, Jeff Garcia and Jake Delhomme) were undrafted, though four others (Tom Brady, Derek Anderson, Matt Hasselbeck and Marc Bulger) were 6th or 7th rounders, which isn't much different from being undrafted. That gets you to the 7 figure you quote.
If you're interested, here's the complete list of projected 2008 starting quarterbacks for each team, and what round they were drafted in. QBs that are still with the team that originally drafted them are marked with a *; 22 out of 32 teams (68%) are starting a QB they drafted:
Patriots - T. Brady (6)*
Bills - T. Edwards (3)*
Dolphins - J. Beck (2)*
Jets - K. Clemens (2)*
Colts - P. Manning (1)*
Jaguars - D. Garrard (4)*
Texans - M. Schaub (3)
Flaming Thumbtacks - V. Young (1)*
Steelers - B. Roethlisberger (1)*
Browns - D. Anderson (6)
Bengals - C. Palmer (1)*
Ravens - K. Boller (1)*
Chargers - P. Rivers (1)*
Broncos - J. Cutler (1)*
Raiders - J. Russell (1)*
Chiefs - B. Croyle (3)*
Cowboys - T. Romo (undrafted)
Giants - E. Manning (1)*
Redskins - J. Campbell (1)*
Eagles - D. McNabb (1)*
Buccaneers - J. Garcia (undrafted)
Saints - D. Brees (2)
Panthers - J. Delhomme (undrafted)
Falcons - J. Harrington (1)
Packers - A. Rodgers (1)*
Vikings - T. Jackson (2)*
Lions - J. Kitna (undrafted)
Bears - R. Grossman (1)*
Seahawks - M. Hasselbeck (7)
Cardinals - M. Leinart (1)*
49ers - A. Smith (1)*
Rams - M. Bulger (6)
The actual number of teams whose starting QB is a guy they themselves drafted in the first round is 14, almost half. You might be able to get down to your 7 figure if you cut out Rodgers (who only today became the Packers' projected starter with Favre's retirement), Leinart (who was semi-benched and then injured), Boller (McNair mostly started last year), Russell (didn't play), Grossman (played only half the year) and Alex Smith (injured). That gets you to 8, actually, that started most of last year, but there were also others (Chad Pennington, J.P. Losman) that were their team's first rounders and started the year as the #1 QB.
He would change the tarmac into the tarpmac
Why is it that Alex Smith is the bust, and not the 49ers? They drafted a kid who ran a spread offense, and did so quite well, and the 49ers draft Smith and tell him, run this other offense, that is nothing like the spread offense, and surprise, he can't.
Because he was projected to be a good passer and that spread junk was just to help his mobility. Rural Meyer wrote a check that Alex Smith couldn't cash; therefor, he is a bust.
Yeah. I had zero hope Alex Smith would be anything but a bust. He's a good guy and all, but the 49ers are doomed until they find an actual NFL quarterback. Also, actual NFL ownership would be nice, too.
Someone has been paying attention to the Jets offseason.
Its usually the guys projected to be strong pass rushers that are taken high in the draft that get the bust label.
I think the thing that is lost on many is the amount of personnel needed for an NFL team. Over any period of time, you are going to be averaging 1 first round pick a year. You need some undrafted players and a few late rounders to contribute.
Thankfully, most football fans look at all personnel decision and don't worry so much about "winning drafts" or "exploiting market inefficiencies." That high tech excuse mongering hasn't made its way to the NFL.
Probably the most known NFL quote is Al Davis' "Just Win Baby"
I'm pretty sure Alex Smith is the worst #1 overall pick in (modern) NFL history. David Carr was and is terrible, but still better than Smith. Tim Couch was ruined by injuries, and anyway was better than Smith before the injuries killed him. Ki-jana Carter was probably doomed anyway (Penn State RBs always suck in the NFL unless they have the ridiculous 2005-2006 Kansas City offensive line in front of them), but he blew his knee in training camp, so we'll never know. Even a guy like Steve Emtman, again, got hurt and anyway wasn't *horrible* when he did play. Alex Smith has torpedoed the franchise.
Of course, the NFl also has pretty evenly distributed revenue sharing and a salary cap, so some teams aren't operating with one hand tied behind their backs relative to other teams. The NFL and MLB are apples and oranges.
Football is far too much of a team game to ever be as dependent on pure statistical analysis as baseball is.
I think so, too. The action is too entwined between too many players at once as well.
It's generally believed that the offensive line is responsible for sacks. It's not so, though; quarterbacks are usually just as responsible for sacks as their lines. For instance, the Colts really don't have the best pass-blocking line in the NFL; it's just that Peyton Manning is near impossible to sack because he unloads the ball so fast. Brett Favre was always hard to sack.
Ben Roethlisberger is an oddity in every way imaginable, and sacks is one. Roethlisberger is prone to taking a lot of sacks, because he holds the ball as long as any QB in the league. On the other hand, though, last year the Steelers really did have the worst pass-blocking line in the NFL, yet Roethlisberger took fewer sacks than another QB might have, because he's almost unbelievably good at escaping them. It seems counterintuitive, but:
1. Roethlisberger will take more sacks than an average QB that are not the o-line's fault, but
2. Roethlisberger will also take fewer sacks than an average QB that are the o-line's fault.
Now, David Carr is the opposite. David Carr entered the NFL with an expansion team and immediately destroyed all records for being sacked. It quickly became canon to joke about how awful the Houston offensive line was, but... not so. The Texans never had the worst pass-blocking lines around; the extreme sack totals are Carr's fault. David Carr has no concept of a "pocket" whatsoever and refuses to throw the ball unless he sees somebody wide open. He runs around and takes sacks incessantly, and took the habit with him to Carolina; he got sacked twice as much as 93-year-old Vinny Testaverde.
And the list goes on... quantifying line play properly (assigning credit or blame appropriately to the o-line, as opposed to the QB or RB) is probably impossible, but any fool that watched the Super Bowl knows the Giants won because their defensive line dominated the game.
No, instead we get Joe Buck trotting out QB Rating and citing it every week as if it means something.
That is a pretty decent argument on that point. By the same logic, Aundray Bruce had a similar impact for the Falcons.
I would have likely stated Ki-Jana Carter because he never did anything, and I could not see how anybody thought he would do anything.
Of course, the NFl also has pretty evenly distributed revenue sharing and a salary cap, so some teams aren't operating with one hand tied behind their backs relative to other teams. The NFL and MLB are apples and oranges.
If a salary cap and revenue sharing would focus people on the right things, than it seems like that it would be a bonus. At the end of the day, its not whether its an apple or an orange, its whether the fruit is rotten.
And its already been said in this thread, but any casual fan of the NFL would know that teams like the Steelers and Patriots, that continually let free agents walk, tend to do really well, while the teams that go on orgiastic spending sprees tend to spin their wheels and go to salary cap hell.
I really don't see how Football can be subject to the same type of statistical analysis as Baseball
In baseball virtually every event is recorded
In baseball everyday players accumulate enough chances to have statistically valid samples
In baseball someone with 500 PAs is likely going to have faced a similar level of pitching as some other player with 500 PAs
In baseball someone with 500 PAs, 150 ip is likely to have played in front of the same assortment of umpiring crews as any other player with 500PAs/ 150IP
In football take two CBs, they may have each played 16 games- and virtually never covered the same WRs,
In football coaching and scouting staffs watch A LOT of film, someone may be tasked with watching film of offensive lineman, and they will watch more film of linemen blocking to trying to block than any fan, casual or serious, could tolerate.
If a baseball coach was tasked with reviewing infield defense footage the same way- he'd come to the conclusion that Jeter is vastly overrated (I believe one NY Post columnist actually asked some non-Yankee scouts their opinion of Jeter's dee, the consensus, much to his shock, was that it wasn't that good...)
I think in many ways MLBers are a lot lazier than their NFL counterparts- they don't spend nearly as much time analyzing video and scouting (funny thing is baseball has so much more video- too much actually), they've become dependent upon stats (traditional stats) and fixating on physical tools (more so than NFLers, NFLers actually measure tools, with stop watches and weights and measuring sticks- then watch a zillion hours of tape to see how a player uses said tools).
True, but 50% is one of the highest hit rates on any position. The overall "hit rate" on first round picks is more like 40%, and offensive tackle is the only position that you're more likely to get a good player with a top-10 pick with than quarterback.
The perception is that a lot of highly-drafted quarterbacks are busts not because they bust more often than other positions, but because quarterback such an important and attention-grabbing position that when a quarterback does bust, it's a big story. When a linebacker or a defensive end or a wide receiver busts, not so much.
Or even understanding it. Many of the statsy geeks are the ones that talk about "going for it on 4th down" or "foregoing field goals" without taking into account the specific line play on that specific day in the specific matchups that you are capable of putting on the field.
Still, you would think somebody would care enough to put a value on a rush yard versus a passing yard, or tell us if an INT is more harmful than a lost fumble
That value is heavily context dependent. You can have somebody care enough to start neutralizing everything and end up telling us some outlandish thing like "QB have no effect on interceptions" because they have fictionalized things so much. I don't think that is "caring enough"; that is just numerology.
I really don't see how Football can be subject to the same type of statistical analysis as Baseball
It wouldn't be exactly the same kind of analysis, but just because events are intertwined and not separate, doesn't mean you can't evaluate them at a more sophisticated level than they are now. Social scientists are able to make statistical analysis all the time of complex sociological situations with many variables. There are complications with such analysis, and its hard to get a clear picture, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
A high percentage of the busts at WR is guys that run blazing 40 times but don't have much in the way of actual football skills. Baseball has nothing to challenge football's 40-yard-dash as far as things that are held as sacred yet are totally useless go. Even high school batting average is more useful than the 40 yard dash.
fine. But that doesn't mean that people can't learn the fact that yards per pass attempt is the most important stat in the passing game. This goes unnoticed by most.
This supports my case the NFL is in the stone age. They didn't keep sacks as an official stat until the 80s. THE 1980s!!!
There is nothing stopping them from collecting better data. I know a guy that worked at the NFL for 6 years; he said that indeed the NFL refuses to publish the video because they want to keep it in-house. They have a negative view towards "dorks in the basement" crunching numbers.
The NFL remains arrogant in that they feel that every element of their business must be vertically integrated. How is the NFL Network coming along boys? Year 5 of irrelevance I believe.
Bingo. For whatever reason, they don't offically keep track of things like penalties called against a player or times thrown at (they do put it in the pbp). There's really no reason not to.
Yards per attempt is probably the best single stat to use to evaluate quarterbacks, but it doesn't account for interceptions or how much a QB gets sacked.
Touchdown passes, on the other hand, are the RBI of the NFL. Touchdown passes are 50% predictable function of attempts and yards, 35% coaching decisions (when on the 2, do we throw or pass for the touchdown?) and 15% luck (when you complete a bomb, does the receiver score a touchdown, or get tackled on the 1, where an RB will then score the touchdown most of the time?)
Once again, look at Roethlisberger. (I pick on him because he fascinates me; Ben Roethlisberger is probably the most unique player to ever appear in the NFL, except maybe Lawrence Taylor. He's a total anomaly.) Anyway, Roethlisberger's touchdown percentage was very low in 2004-2005, even though his YPA and rating (which is flawed but not useless, like batting average) was among the very best in the league. The reason was, the Steelers at that time were obsessed with running for touchdowns. Roethlisberger would complete a 45 yard bomb, the receiver would get tackled on the 3, and then the Steelers would run for the score.
After the 2006 motorcycle crash/appendectomy disaster year, which we'll ignore, Roethlisberger's touchdown percentage spiked up in 2007, not because he got better--he didn't; he's been one of the best QBs in the league since the moment he entered it--but because the coaches changed, and the Steelers in 2007 started throwing for touchdowns from inside the 10 as often as running for them.
Justin, you wasted a lot of time on your research there.
Now understand that most teams not named the Packers or Colts, play several QBs every season, some due to injury, some because each one sucks worse than the next.
At the end of the 2007 season, only 7 QBs were drafted in the 1st rd and were starting for the team that drafted them. So the primary QB, or a QB that got a lot of playing time. You caught the part about playing for the team that drafted them, right? You are correct, there are many 1st rd picks floating around the NFL, but why? Usually because they failed and they have been cut, traded or released.
Also, there were 7 starting QBs in 2007 that were undrafted.
The point here is that despite your claim that "drafting 1st rd QBs is reliable" it is far from safe. I happen to think drafting a QB in the 1st rd is a massive waste and only compels you to trot out a losing QB for 3 seasons instead of 1 because of your investment.
1st rd QBs starting for the team that drafted them:
C Palmer - Cincy
P Manning - Indy
J Cutler - Denver
D McNabb - Philly
Rothlesburger - Pitt
J Campbell - Wash
V Young - Tenn
Hardly a through list of the "who's who" QBs in the NFL. I'd say the QBs not on this list are collectively better.
7 Undrafted starting QBs at the end of 2007:
T Romo - Dallas
J Kitna - Detroit
K Warner - Arizona
J Garcia - Tampa
D Huard - KC
C Lemon - Miami
S Hill - SF
The difference in accomplishments between the two groups is not that stark.
**and you could add something like, "starting after 3 seasons" which might be the true measure if the QB worked out or not, we would be left with a mere 4 QBs drafted in the 1st rd and starting for the team that drafted them.
partially wrong. the correct way to calculate yards per pass attempt is to consider a sack a pass attempt, which it is, and minus the yardage. same with an INT, that is an attempt.
Or his Wideouts, or does he have a receiving or blocking tight end, or his line, or does his running back keep def linemen honest?
Or what type of offense does his head coach call?
Does he throw to his running/full backs?
Trying to piece this together
1997
Jim Drunkenmiller. I think you could say he was a bust. This is from the QB bust factory that is the 49ers. They got giddy by stealing Montana and then went to hell in a handbasket.
1998
Peyton Manning. A bit of a choker, but not a bust. He's still playing.
Ryan Leaf. A bust and a head case.
1999
Couch. I don't think he's a bust. He played, he wasn't a star.
McNabb. Not a bust.
Akili Smith. Maybe the biggest bust ever.
Culpepper. Not a bust.
McNown. Busto, but its the Bears, the Midwest version of the 49ers when it comes to recent QB draft evaluation.
2000
Pennington. Not a bust.
2001
Vick. Not a bust.
2002
Carr, Harrington, Ramsey. If not taken in the first round, I doubt you would call these three busts. They have been servicable in the NFL, and Joey Harrington keeps finding teams that let him start.
2003
Palmer, Leftwich, Boller and Grossman. Can you consider any of these guys busts. Most still have starting jobs.
2004
Manning. Rivers, Roethesberger, Losman. Bonanza
2005
Alex Smith. Busto.
2006
Vince Young. Not a bust
2007
JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn. Too early to tell.
So what do we really have:
Drunkenmiller, Akili Smith, Alex Smith and Ryan Leaf are the clear busts over that period. Most of the QBs had/have value, and some are outstanding. That return seems pretty good. (EDIT: Forgot McNown in the bust bunch)
Also, you're leaving Eli Manning and Phil Rivers off the first list, which in my opinion is unreasonable; they should be counted as having been drafted by their current teams. The Chargers and Giants made their picks intending to trade them; they just couldn't hash out the details before the Chargers had to pick. Ernie Accorsi, Giants GM at the time, has said this many times, that if the Giants intended to keep the guy they drafted they would have picked Roethlisberger, but they took Rivers because he was who the Chargers wanted. Not that it matters much; neither Manning or Rivers is *that* good, certainly not on P. Manning or Roethlisberger's level.
Anyway, my point is not that "drafting QBs is reliable"; it was that drafting QBs is more reliable than drafting most other positions in the first round. The NFL draft as a whole is very unpredictable (though not as much as the MLB draft).
Are you serious?
Define "not a bust".
I think you just defined a bust.
And if you're a completely washed-up meathead, you ice the kicker twice in a row, get a fifteen yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, and cost your team the football game!
I think you're being too lenient. (I didn't include 2007 because it's too early to begin to tell.) Boller, Ramsey, Grossman, Carr, Harrington... these guys stink/stunk. (Couch is a total bust, he was the top pick.) Servicable backups, but not guys would include on a list of players to point out that drafting QBs in the 1st is very reliable.
compared to Ryan Leaf- 48.4% passing, QB rating of 50, 5.6 yards per attempt.
Hell, Couch was at least mediocre, which is mroe tahh you can say for someone like Rick Mirer
Are you kidding me? Didn't Kurt Warner win 2 NFL MVPs?
We are trying to evaluate whether or not drafting a QB in the 1st rd is any better than getting your QB via other methods. Granted Warner is just ok today, but that is not the point, when Warner won his MVPs in STL, it was "other methods" and his 3rd team.
No he wasn't. He was drafted in 1999 and was out of football 3.5 years later for god sake.
1. Fumble recovery is entirely random. Causing fumbles is a skill, but recovering them is luck. A team that recovers a high percentage of fumbles one year is likely to regress the next.
2. Variance on third down versus second and first down is random and regresses to the mean from year to year and during seasons. A team that is much better on third down than it is on first and second in one season is highly likely to regress the next season. This is true on both offense and defense. Traditionally, it's believed that a team that does especially well on third downs is tough, well coached, or etc., and it's a good thing. The reality is precisely the opposite: A team doing unusually well on third downs is a harbinger of impending regression.
3. Field goal accuracy is mostly random among NFL kickers, but kickoff distance is very much a skill. NFL teams should select their kickers based on kickoff distance, from among the pool of kickers capable of making field goals with some minimum degree of effectiveness. Put another way, there is little to no consistency year-to-year in a kicker's field goal accuracy, but a lot of consistency in kickoff distance. The Patriots realized this, and that's why they let Adam Vinatieri (whose kickoffs are below average) walk and picked up Stephen Gostkowski (whose kickoffs are excellent.) Neil Rackers is the best kicker in the NFL, because of his booming kickoffs. If he kicked in Denver, no visiting kick returner would ever touch the ball; every kickoff would be launched out of the end zone.
4. Passing has much, much more to do with offensive effectiveness than rushing. Pundits love to insist that teams that run the ball a lot are more successful, and the stats seem to support them, but they have the cause and effect reversed; the truth is that teams that are successful run the ball a lot (because they're frequently ahead in the fourth quarter and run the ball to grind the clock.) The 2004-2005 Steelers are the most extreme example. They won because of their extremely good passing game, not their merely above-averageish running game.
5. If you give your running back more than 370 carries in a season, you will ruin him. It seems odd, but this is a hard and fast rule. 370 is the limit. The only exception in NFL history was Eric Dickerson. When a running back goes over 370 carries, he either blows out his knee the following season (Jamal Anderson, Terrell Davis, Jamal Lewis, others), permanently loses effectiveness if he's old (Curtis Martin and Shaun Alexander in recent years), or loses effectiveness for two years before recovering if he's a young superstar (Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson).
That's just five things off the top of my head, but statistical analysis in football is making some headway into the Conventional Wisdom™, as you can see.
3000 yards once? That was good for 18th in the league. The Browns were 25th in the league in scoring that year, and he threw 21 picks that year.
Yes, but... sorry, let me elaborate a little more. My concern was that you're biasing the results by including guys like Warner and Garcia whose careers are complete in list B, while including guys like Roethlisberger, Palmer and Campbell in List A who are still young, and then arguing that List B's overall accomplishments are similar. Even if that's true now, it's not going to be close to true 10 years from now. That's something of a selection bias.
Boller is projected to be the starter for the team that drafted him in the next season. Grossman was a super bowl QB just two seasons ago and is also projected to be his teams starter.
Couch has already been discussed. When you are calling current and multi-year starters "busts" that is really pushing things.
I think people realize this.
2. Variance on third down versus second and first down is random and regresses to the mean from year to year and during seasons.
Part of that reason is that when a team is awful at converting 3rd downs, they address that in the offseason.
3. Field goal accuracy is mostly random among NFL kickers, but kickoff distance is very much a skill.
I'd like to see numbers on this. The top kickers are consistent, the guys who bounce from team to team aren't, but that's why they're not top kickers and bounce from team to team.
5. If you give your running back more than 370 carries in a season, you will ruin him.
Like #1, I think people realize this, except for Herm Edwards.
And both teams have terrible offenses. Why? In large part because the best QBs they can get are Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman. Also, I called Couch a bust. The other guys, I said they were not players I would point to in saying that drafting QBs in the 1st is reliable.
I think many College and NFL coaches have known that for along time- and unfortunately many haven't really cared (or cared more about winning "today")...
There is no way to address "being awful at converting 3rd downs" unless the cause is that you're awful on any down; you just address your offense or defense if it isn't good enough. The problem is that if, say, your defense is below-average on 1st and 2nd down but well above average on 3rd down, most NFL execs will be tricked into thinking they have a good defense when they do not. So they don't work on improving it in the offseason, the defense collapses the following year, and everyone's wondering why. The reason is, because they regressed on third downs.
A team being much better on, say, second down than on first or third is just as common, but of course second down isn't nearly as important, and won't impact your record nearly as much as a team being notably good or bad on third down.
A smart coach or executive (or fan) would study the issue and say "oh wow, we were lucky last year -- we need to improve our defense," and set about doing that. This isn't generally recognized yet.
And yes, the destruction of Curtis Martin, Shaun Alexander and Larry Johnson in the last few seasons, coupled with MSM outlets like ESPN finally giving Aaron Schatz the air time/webpage space to show the world that going over 370 is destructive, has caused general awareness of the 370 limit to rise.
wtf?
barry bonds is also not a complete bust.
Peyton Manning is to the NFL what AROD is to the MLB... in the eyes of some fans
I'm sure you've heard ARod referred to as a choker, and I can't believe you haven't heard people call Peyton a choker.
looks like we are still in the stone age.
I can complete 6 of 7 passes for 21 yards. 86%!
or
5 of 10 for 121 yards. 50%
Passing percentage is another stat that is meaningless on its face.
Yeah, like that would ever happen. He's a huge choker.
Ask any random non-Steelers fan who's better, Ben Roethlisberger or Eli Manning, and when they say Manning like most non-Steelers fans do, ask them why. What you hear will amaze you.
I said not a stark difference. And between the 1st rd draft picks and the undrafted list. It is pretty shocking to see the lack of results from the 1st rd picks.
This, even before I get into late rd draft picks that are almost cost free.
Not much notable about a RB being done at age 32 with 14,000 career yards
3rd in career rushing attempts, 4th in yards
Bettis played 9 more years after rushing 375 times, including 4 1000 yard seasons
Would Martin have been better in 2005 if he'd only rushed 300 times in 2004? Maybe...
But I don't think he likely had much left anyway- he was already an outlier in terms of NFL running back longevity, how much longer did you think he was going to go on as ab effective RB?
In small samples, yes, but nobody can sustain 6-7 for 21 for any length of time. In larger samples, like full seasons, the completion percentage leaders list is similar to the yards-per-attempt list, more similar than the total yardage list, in fact, for the obvious reason that higher comp% = fewer zeroes getting factored into YPA. Completion percentage is important, but insufficient by itself, of course. Yards per attempt is basically putting together yardage and comp%.
Play-by-play guys, yeah. But you don't hear about a player or team's ability to recover fumbles because most people realize this.
There is no way to address "being awful at converting 3rd downs" unless the cause is that you're awful on any down; you just address your offense or defense if it isn't good enough.
There absolutely is a way to address that: you get better. You improve your starters so you're not facing 3rd and long as much, or you get a "possesion reciever" that you can rely on more than whoever you were throwing out there as your 3rd reciever.
A smart coach or executive (or fan) would study the issue and say "oh wow, we were lucky last year -- we need to improve our defense," and set about doing that. This isn't generally recognized yet.
I don't agree with this at all. Just because some teams don't realize that there's more than one way to solve a problem doesn't mean all teams think this way.
And he sucked. His yards per rush were low, and almost always lower than other Steelers running backs, and he never broke big runs. If you need 1-2 yards, Bettis is your guy, but otherwise he sucked. The stats say this, and I've personally watched every Steelers game since 1993, and my eyes agree with the stats. Bettis was never much good after the Steelers overused him in the late 90s. His primary utility was getting two yards and never fumbling, making him useful for grinding the clock to hold late leads.
I've heard that since I was 5. We still have not really put a value on a rushing yard vs a passing yard. There is a difference between the two, I'd bet that a pass yard is worth just 60% of a rushing yard, due the the much higher turnover rate involved in the passing game.
Good point.
Alex Rodriguez. A bit of a choker, but not a bust. He's still playing.
I just didn't expect that sort of stupidity on BBTF...
I think it was meant to be humorous
1998: Huntley and McAfee had higher Y/A, but they ran the ball 73 times total.
1999: Huntley again had a higher Y/A, but in 93 attempts.
2000: Huntley again and Ma'afala, higher Y/A in 67 total attempts.
2001: Ma'afala had 120 attempts, but a lower Y/A. Zereoue had a higher Y/A, in 85 attempts.
2002: Zereoue had almost 100 yards more in 6 more attempts. Bettis was 30.
2003: Zereoue had the same Y/A as Bettis.
2004: Bettis had more carries, Staley had better Y/A. But that was to be expected.
2005: Willie Parker took over as the starter. Bettis was 33.
Backup running backs having a higher Y/A on far, far fewer carries is nothing out of the ordinary. You'd have a point if most of the seasons after '97 were like 2004 and 2002 where the Steelers went with two-backs full time, but most of those seasons weren't like that.
If you don't want stupidity on the board, then you should probably stop posting.
Why? In large part because the best QBs they can get are Kyle Boller and Rex Grossman.
Who are both on average better than you can get in the late rounds, which is why they are still starting in the NFL.
The mainstream doesn't realize fumble recovery is random, yet, or at least doesn't recognize it as a significant factor in explaining why a certain team did well or poorly.
I have never heard anyone say--look at team x, they are really good at recovering fumbles.
A smart coach or executive (or fan) would study the issue and say "oh wow, we were lucky last year -- we need to improve our defense," and set about doing that. This isn't generally recognized yet.
Likewise, I don't think people think they are lucky. If you aren't getting it done on 3rd down, you aren't likely getting it done any other time.
The exception to this are some of the gimmicky offenses you might find in college. In those cases, they may have trouble in short yardage situations all the time.
1. While backups having more YPA than starters in small samples is not out of the ordinary, Bettis' YPA was consistently lower than the other RBs' every year for years, and it's not like Richard Huntley and Amos Zereoue were budding stars.
2. I was watching the games, and Huntley and Zereoue didn't do better because they were always gaining 6 yards on 3rd and 17; they would enter the game to give Bettis a break, carry the ball a time or two, and leave. They would both gain more yards on their carries and look better doing it. It wasn't until Amos Zereoue left the Steelers that I realized he actually wasn't fast; he was just fast compared to Bettis.
Bettis did have his usefulness, I agree: He was durable, he never fumbled, and as long as the Steelers didn't try any kind of stupid off-tackle or pitch play, he was tough to drop for a loss. Most of his career, he was miscast as a featured back; but then, after 2000 he really wasn't a featured back anymore except when injuries necessitated it in 2001 and 2004.
The overall point, if I may at least attempt to bring it back to that, is that Bettis isn't especially strong evidence as a counterpoint to the Curse of 370.
I agree with you. My language was confusing, as usual. I was saying the completion percentage list is generally similar to the YPA list; the total yardage list usually is not similar to the YPA list.
this isn't twice as much. and factor in the 3-1 ratio of turnovers in the passing game over running game, it is clear a rushing yard is worth more towards a victory.
that is not to say you run on all 3 downs to get a first down. it is not a quesiton of either or here.
sounds like Eddie George. He was vastly overrated in college and in the NFL.
Bettis was an effective back for 7 seasons after that. He's a fine counterpoint to the 370 curse. Jamaal Anderson he was not.
I understand college football is foreign to many NFL fans, but more often than not, NFL teams can't manage to get 3 yards when needed.
The 2-pt conversion line is sitting at the 2 in the NFL and the 3 in college. I bet Beane would go for it 66% of the time.
2-yards!
Thats true, but they might overrate the defense because they have recovered a lot of fumbles.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main