Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

OT: NFL/NHL thread

i estimate that absolutely noone gives a damn about the NHL, so by folding that thread into this one, we won’t distract from what this thread is really about: boner pills, blood doping (is it low t?), and…jesus christ did mike vick just throw another ####### interception?

steagles Posted: November 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM | 7987 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, nhl

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.

Page 38 of 80 pages ‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 >  Last ›
   3701. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4362242)
Ray, you just said yourself that you'd "go to war with Flacco." And since I'm not putting him in the class of Peyton or Brady in the regular season, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, unless it's that you'd go to war with a lucky QB.


His numbers during the regular season aren't all that good. They're okay. But I like his style of play, so I would go to war with him, yes. I think he's an above-average QB. I can win with that.
   3702. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4362243)
jim harbaugh got the same label for taking the colts to the afc championship game despite a 12-27 effort against kansas city.

that the opposing teams to the colts turned the ball over 8 times in the first two playoff rounds is long forgotten.

not comparing harbaugh to flacco. just throwing out one of many such examples of quarterback labels past
   3703. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4362246)
brett favre was a tremendous playoff quarterback until he got older and his performance became very uneven especially when weather became a factor. the combination of the impact from the broken thumb on his throwing hand that never really healed correctly and cold weather was a toxic mix for green bay.
   3704. The District Attorney Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4362254)
   3705. Shredder Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4362257)
I don't know about this, but the penalty for holding in the end zone is a safety. So Darren is right - the Ravens should have done *everything* in their power to keep the defense away from the punter for as long as possible.
I saw that hold and quickly realized it wouldn't have mattered anyway. And I'm not sure why it took Simms so long to realize (other than the fact that he's just not very smart), that the safety was absolutely the best option in that situation.

But if they had just blatantly committed penalty after penalty on that play (as they should have) it would have reminded me of Brett Bielma at Wisconsin when the NCAA made that one year rule change to starting the clock on kick-offs when the ball was kicked, as opposed to when it was caught. When they played Penn State a few years ago, with about 30 seconds left in the first half, he just kept having his team go off-side on the kickoff. Not sure if PSU could have just declined it, or been allowed to tack yards on to the end of the run, but either way, they didn't, and it worked perfectly.
   3706. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4362260)
But if they had just blatantly committed penalty after penalty on that play (as they should have) it would have reminded me of Brett Bielma at Wisconsin when the NCAA made that one year rule change to starting the clock on kick-offs when the ball was kicked, as opposed to when it was caught. When they played Penn State a few years ago, with about 30 seconds left in the first half, he just kept having his team go off-side on the kickoff. Not sure if PSU could have just declined it, or been allowed to tack yards on to the end of the run, but either way, they didn't


I thought of this exact game last night as they play unfolded.
   3707. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4362265)
I saw that hold and quickly realized it wouldn't have mattered anyway. And I'm not sure why it took Simms so long to realize (other than the fact that he's just not very smart), that the safety was absolutely the best option in that situation.


Simms really leaves a lot to be desired. I typically expect the play-by-play man -- the non-athlete -- to be more in tune with the rules and these offbeat strategies.

And yes - each team should be specifically thinking about how to exploit the rules in anticipation of a non-standard situation.
   3708. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:55 PM (#4362266)
That was brilliant coaching by Bielma. Penn State had no idea what to do.
   3709. Nasty Nate Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4362268)
And I'm not sure why it took Simms so long to realize (other than the fact that he's just not very smart), that the safety was absolutely the best option in that situation.


I don't think it occurred to Simms that the safety could eat up so much clock. If it didn't take any time, the 49ers would be able to run one play after the punt return, needing only a long FG to tie. With a generic punt, they still need a touchdown after the punt return.
   3710. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4362271)
At one point after the two-minute warning Nantz asked Simms to calculate whether the 49ers would have enough time to get the ball back after they had turned it over on downs, and, as predicted, Simms was not up to the task. He kind of started to analyze it but then his thoughts just faded off. ("Well, let's see, just do 45 seconds...")

I'd have thought the networks would have a statgeek or someone whispering sweet nothings into the announcers' ears re this stuff. What the rules are, whether X strategy would make sense, whether the team will get the ball back, etc.

(Of course, I have no realistic expectations that the announcers would actually learn this stuff themselves in order to be competend at their jobs.)
   3711. The District Attorney Posted: February 04, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4362277)
Leitch and Deadspin eviscerate the announcers.
   3712. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4362282)
That was brilliant coaching by Bielma. Penn State had no idea what to do.

paterno raised holy h8ll with the big ten under the mantle of player safety. i can see that argument.

i am pretty sure paterno never spoke to bielama after that game. as in ever.
   3713. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4362285)
ray

nfl teams should have a coach dedicated to clock management but they don't. organizations cut corners in curious ways

   3714. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4362286)
Ripping Phil Simms is low hanging fruit. There's only a handful of quality color guys, and even then they aren't unanimously praised.

i am pretty sure paterno never spoke to bielama after that game. as in ever.


Well it was a pretty short window.
   3715. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4362291)
nfl teams should have a coach dedicated to clock management but they don't. organizations cut corners in curious ways


Not having a dedicated "clock management coach" has nothing to do with cutting corners. It is that a head coach would never give up that power.
   3716. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4362293)
And yes - each team should be specifically thinking about how to exploit the rules in anticipation of a non-standard situation.


When I saw those blatant holds on the safety, and realized how inconsequential they were, it reminded me of the 2010 World Cup game between Ghana and Uruguay. In both situations, the normal penalties for the infraction at issue (in that case, a blatant hand ball to stop a goal), were generally punitive enough, though not so in the particular case.

Not having a dedicated "clock management coach" has nothing to do with cutting corners. It is that a head coach would never give up that power.


It really amazes me that coaches brag about spending 18 hours a day on the job, but can't spend 15 minutes understanding the clock and how to manage it.
   3717. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4362294)
It is that a head coach would never give up that power.

head coaches ignore assistants all the time. what makes you think that by having someone dedicated to provide educated input the head coach surrenders anything?
   3718. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4362299)
da:

not really. at the big ten season kickoff meeting in chicago paterno had plenty of chances to speak with the wisky coach. didn't happen
   3719. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4362303)
not really. at the big ten season kickoff meeting in chicago paterno had plenty of chances to speak with the wisky coach. didn't happen


It was a joke about him being dead.

head coaches ignore assistants all the time. what makes you think that by having someone dedicated to provide educated input the head coach surrenders anything?


That's why it won't work! Head coaches are control freaks.
   3720. Shredder Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4362304)
I don't think it occurred to Simms that the safety could eat up so much clock. If it didn't take any time, the 49ers would be able to run one play after the punt return, needing only a long FG to tie. With a generic punt, they still need a touchdown after the punt return.
But a generic punt can be blocked. Assuming the odds of returning a punt and a free kick are the same, the odds that the punt gets blocked are probably as good or better than the Niners kicking a long field goal or completing a Hail Mary. Plus, after a safety that took far less time off the clock, there's almost no way they would have been in field goal range after a free kick AND had time left to run a play. I don't know that anything would have absolutely 100% locked the game away, but I'd rather be up three with my opponent on the wrong side of the 50 yard line than up five with the opponent in range to get the ball to the end zone.
paterno raised holy h8ll with the big ten under the mantle of player safety. i can see that argument.
Well, it was a ridiculous rule, set up by the greedy MFers at the NCAA who wanted to shorten overall game times, but absolutely refused to do so by actually cutting out any commercial time, which has made college football almost unwatchable in person. I went to a Notre Dame game this year, and I guess you don't realize it at home with multiple other games to switch to (or DVRs), but the number and length of TV time outs is outrageous.
   3721. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:11 PM (#4362307)
Before the play, I thought the best option would be to have the best "hands" guy receive the snap and then run around, with the aim of creating a pile in the end zone. That might have got the rest of the 4 seconds.

Of course, as I thought about it, it also increases the risk of a fumble.

It does seem odd, though, that a safety on fourth down is a safety. I mean, if the ball is down just outside the endzone, you get the ball at the one. If it goes down in the endzone you get two points but the ball way back down on your end.

I suppose in most circumstances that benefits the defense.
   3722. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4362311)
Plus, after a safety that took far less time off the clock, there's almost no way they would have been in field goal range after a free kick AND had time left to run a play.


The problem is the return. If you kick with 8-9 seconds on the clock and they bring it back to the 35 or thereabouts, there would almost certainly be a tick or two left.
   3723. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4362314)
So if they clock the punter in the endzone on that gimme-a-safety play, is it roughing the kicker?
   3724. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4362318)
shredder

i know of what you speak on the length of games. when wisconsin's games were featured espn or abc games the commercial breaks really made the game a chore
   3725. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4362319)
I went to a Notre Dame game this year, and I guess you don't realize it at home with multiple other games to switch to (or DVRs), but the number and length of TV time outs is outrageous


that's a stadium where it is particularly noticable (drawn out football games) as one of the few stadiums w/o video replay boards.

Leitch and Deadspin eviscerate the announcers


While the blackout definitely made these points obvious last night, that column could be written each Monday (perhaps it is). Though, I did love Leitch's line about these shows being a 'Moose Lodge' for the has beens.
   3726. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4362321)
ray

he has to be in the act of kicking

if he's running around it would be no different than how his status changes if the punter fumbles the snap and then tries to run with the ball. in that moment roughing is no longer possible. he's a target
   3727. Shredder Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4362328)
So if they clock the punter in the endzone on that gimme-a-safety play, is it roughing the kicker?
Harvey said it, but roughing the kicker implies that the guy is actually a kicker. If he doesn't try to kick it, he's not a kicker. Which makes one wonder, why not put a wide receiver back there for that play? I guess punters are more used to taking long snaps, but I'd trust a sure hands receiver to run around back there and not drop the ball. I suppose the goal is to just run off some time then step out of the back of the end zone, but even last night it was a bit too close for comfort. Plus, it's not like deception is really a goal on that play.
   3728. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4362329)
Okay Harvey, makes sense.
   3729. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4362332)
Which makes one wonder, why not put a wide receiver back there for that play?


Because then you remove the element of surprise, which I think was somewhat in play last night.

I do think it's kind of cheap to exploit the rules in this way, but those are the rules.

(Keep in mind I'm someone who hates the idea that the offense is allowed to kneel down in the final seconds with a lead.)
   3730. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4362335)
one thing that is going to drive jim harbaugh insane is that his brother was more clever last night. the niners were to some extent outcoached.

john is going to be able to rub jim's nose in sh8t forever on that

i know i would
   3731. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4362338)
i definitely agree that jim was outcoached. particularly at the end of the game.
   3732. Nasty Nate Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4362358)
(Keep in mind I'm someone who hates the idea that the offense is allowed to kneel down in the final seconds with a lead.)


I'm guessing there's no elegant solution to that (if one thinks it a problem).

I don't understand why the stopping clock spike is allowed, though. That should be grounding.
   3733. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4362365)
I'm guessing there's no elegant solution to that (if one thinks it a problem).


You could do what the Arena League does: if you don't gain yardage, the clock stops.
   3734. Shredder Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4362369)
You could do what the Arena League does: if you don't gain yardage, the clock stops.
On the flip side, you would never see a quarterback spike the ball when his team is trailing.
   3735. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4362371)
You could do what the Arena League does: if you don't gain yardage, the clock stops.


I'd love for the NFL to adopt this rule within 2 minutes.

It just seems cheap to me that a team can burn over a minute of the clock by kneeling down. I know they earned this privilege since they have the lead, but it just feels like BS.
   3736. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4362375)
The thing is, we could all agree that it's stupid and needs to change and the league won't change it for safety reasons. The kneel down is a physically safe play (unless you are playing Tampa) and running the ball isn't.
   3737. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4362377)
Harvey said it, but roughing the kicker implies that the guy is actually a kicker. If he doesn't try to kick it, he's not a kicker. Which makes one wonder, why not put a wide receiver back there for that play? I guess punters are more used to taking long snaps, but I'd trust a sure hands receiver to run around back there and not drop the ball. I suppose the goal is to just run off some time then step out of the back of the end zone, but even last night it was a bit too close for comfort. Plus, it's not like deception is really a goal on that play.

As someone who had some of the same thoughts, I also realized that if no punter is in, the 49ers can rush everyone. Snap it to a WR and there is no need to have anyone back. If you rush 11 and the punter then kicks it, the ball will not stop rolling before the clock runs out.
   3738. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4362385)
I'd love for the NFL to adopt this rule within 2 minutes.


I don't like context-specific rules, because it's really easy to find a counter that exposes its flaws.

Does this only apply to the team in the lead, or can the trailing team benefit from it as well? What if the game is tied?

Then again, I've never really gotten the objection to the kneel-down. It's a play. The ball is snapped, which the QB has to handle. The defensive team had 58:50 seconds to prevent it from becoming an option.

I don't like the spike though. I prefer the old, fire-it-out of bounds method for clock killing. Then again, I think the spike is tremendously overused. Most times, I'd rather have the down than the handful of seconds it saves.

As someone who had some of the same thoughts, I also realized that if no punter is in, the 49ers can rush everyone. Snap it to a WR and there is no need to have anyone back. If you rush 11 and the punter then kicks it, the ball will not stop rolling before the clock runs out.


Yup, that's why the punter had to be the one back there.

   3739. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4362391)
Bottom line is that while Flacco hasn't yet displayed the overall regular season consistency of an elite QB---the numbers don't lie---he's more than performed on that level in his last three postseasons, against the best teams the league has had to offer. He's led his team to one championship, and only a dropped pass in the final minute in 2012 stopped him from being able to compete for another one. I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to nitpick that assessment, but then I'm not a mindreader.

Because the implication is the Flacco has some innate ability to perform better in the postseason. Anyone would grant that a. Flacco has the ability to have great games and b. his last six playoff games (I think including 2011 doesn't boost his case) have been great games. The difference is whether you think that's because it's the postseason or you think it's a combination of a hot streak and luck.


I'm not implying a damn thing. I'm just reciting Flacco's postseason numbers, and you can deconstruct them to your heart's content. Whether they're predictive of what he might do going forward is something neither you nor I can know, any more that we could have known what Peyton Manning's regular season numbers would have predicted about what he did against the Ravens.

Personally I think that Flacco's shown elite skills but not elite consistency, which is what separates the true greats from the pack. As a Ravens fan I hope he can carry his postseason level forward and give RGIII a little competition for media attention next year in the Washington-Baltimore market. Too bad the NFL can't bend their schedule template a bit in order to allow natural rivals to meet every year, like the Redskins and the Baltimore Colts did BITD.
   3740. Nasty Nate Posted: February 04, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4362394)
As someone who had some of the same thoughts, I also realized that if no punter is in, the 49ers can rush everyone. Snap it to a WR and there is no need to have anyone back. If you rush 11 and the punter then kicks it, the ball will not stop rolling before the clock runs out.


But if you are taking a safety and holding all rushers in the process, it doesn't make much of a difference having 11 rushers versus 10. I'm guessing the punter's familiarity with the formation and receiving the snap was the reason he was back there.
   3741. Shredder Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4362405)
If you rush 11 and the punter then kicks it, the ball will not stop rolling before the clock runs out.
There's not a big difference between rushing 10 and rushing 11, especially when your planning on just getting tackled or going out of bounds anyway. I mean, we're talking about pretty low levels of probability here anyway, so in the long run not much of this matters, but so long as we're going down this road, unless the plan is to purposely snap the ball over the kicker's head, and there's a chance that my punter gets tackled in the end zone, I'd rather have someone else back there. Mostly because there's going to be time left on the clock for the kick, and I'd rather not have my punter get hurt right before he kicks off on the next play. Though I suppose if that happened, they could just go to a conventional kick off from the 20.
   3742. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4362408)
I'm not implying a damn thing. I'm just reciting Flacco's postseason numbers,


Andy, why recite his postseason numbers if you're not implying anything? That makes no sense.

   3743. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4362418)
As a Ravens fan


Ah, we have found the cause of the Flacco cheerleading. I should have figured it out earlier.
   3744. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4362420)
Andy, why recite his postseason numbers if you're not implying anything? That makes no sense.

I've been reciting those numbers on and off for the past few weeks, in response to the idea that Flacco is nothing but an average quarterback on a hot streak, a sentiment that's less openly expressed now, but one that still seems to hold sway in some quarters.

And I don't need to "imply" anything about Flacco. I openly stated what I think about him in the paragraph you chose not to copy---he's shown elite skills but not elite overall consistency.
   3745. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4362425)
If he's not a (slightly-above) average QB on a hot streak then what is he?
   3746. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4362426)
As a Ravens fan

Ah, we have found the cause of the Flacco cheerleading. I should have figured it out earlier.


I'm cheering him on the field, but his numbers do the cheering here.

And what might be the allegiances of his critics? What's your favorite team, The Flying Rotisserie League Chickens?
   3747. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4362430)
If he's not a (slightly-above) average QB on a hot streak then what is he?

Take a reading lesson and apply it to what I wrote right above your question. And BTW what team and QB are you cheering for, Mr. Impartiality?
   3748. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4362436)
Isn't there some distance between (slightly above) average and elite?

Flacco looks to me like a very, very good QB and I'd happily have him as my QB. I might think twice about paying him like Brady or Manning, but I'd be happy to pay him well and worry about other areas.
   3749. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4362440)
Take a reading lesson and apply it to what I wrote right above your question.


Average QBs can be guys with elite skills who lack consistency. Those aren't contradictory. Eli Manning has elite skills. Cam Newton has elite skills. Jay Cutler has elite skills.
   3750. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4362445)
I've been reciting those numbers on and off for the past few weeks, in response to the idea that Flacco is nothing but an average quarterback on a hot streak, a sentiment that's less openly expressed now, but one that still seems to hold sway in some quarters.


I think he's above average, but that's because I'm obsessed with the long game. I think the statement that he is an average quarterback on a hot streak is certainly a reasonable one.

And I don't need to "imply" anything about Flacco. I openly stated what I think about him in the paragraph you chose not to copy---he's shown elite skills but not elite overall consistency.


"Elite overall consistency" is a prerequisite for the whole "elite skills" thing. Any MLB scrub can hit a home run every now and again, or go 16-40 in an eight game stretch. Same for QBs.
   3751. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4362446)
Isn't there some distance between (slightly above) average and elite?


I'd say there are 4 elite QBs in the NFL and slightly above average is guys 11-14 or so. In between, I'd fit guys like Ryan, Wilson, Kaepernick, Griffin, Roethlisberger and Rivers.
   3752. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4362448)
And what might be the allegiances of his critics? What's your favorite team, The Flying Rotisserie League Chickens?


I'm a Patriots fan who dislikes the Ravens and in particular Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and Ray Rice. But I like Flacco, as I've made abundantly clear, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.
   3753. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4362449)
flacco has been a starter for several years, is clearly a fairly intelligent fellow, has a very solid offensive line, solid receivers and is looking to sign a big deal after this season.

if there was ever a confluence of factors that would drive performance i think this fits

not that flacco is going all aaron brooks after he signs his deal. but let's acknowledge the context
   3754. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4362452)
And what might be the allegiances of his critics? What's your favorite team, The Flying Rotisserie League Chickens?


Well, since you asked, one with one of the worst defenses in the league. Flacco went 22-42 for 232 and a TD and an INT (66.8 passer rating FYI) against them in a loss. (The Eagles.) I'm sure his agent will ignore that one during contract discussions.
   3755. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4362456)
"Elite overall consistency" is a prerequisite for the whole "elite skills" thing. Any MLB scrub can hit a home run every now and again, or go 16-40 in an eight game stretch. Same for QBs.

You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years. It's not as if plenty of quarterbacks haven't had the opportunity.
   3756. jmurph Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4362458)
I think Flacco is pretty clearly several giant steps behind the best QBs in the league, but "average" is selling him short. I just don't think there are very many good quarterbacks in the league right now. I doubt I could name 10 good ones before I got to Flacco. Something like (in random order): Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning, Ryan... to me it's just a big pile of good to pretty good to bad after that. You want to hang your hat on Eli, or the trio of impressive rookies, or Romo, or Stafford, or Newton before you get to Flacco, be my guest. I wouldn't really argue either way.
   3757. jmurph Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:40 PM (#4362460)
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years. It's not as if plenty of quarterbacks haven't had the opportunity.


Again I'd quibble with "average," too, but Eli did it. Twice. (Again, for the record, I'd put both Flacco and Eli at well above average, average meaning the 16th or 17th best QB in the league. They're both clearly better than that.)
   3758. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4362462)
And what might be the allegiances of his critics? What's your favorite team, The Flying Rotisserie League Chickens?

Well, since you asked, one with one of the worst defenses in the league. Flacco went 22-42 for 232 and a TD and an INT (66.8 passer rating FYI) against them in a loss. (The Eagles.) I'm sure his agent will ignore that one during contract discussions.


Which shows what? That he's not as consistent during the regular season, as I've never said he was? Is that what you're actually counterposing to his performances over his past three postseasons?

And Ray, my question wasn't addressed to you. I'll say many nasty things about your political opinions, but I'll never claim you let your rooting interest affect any of your player evaluations.
   3759. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4362465)
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years.


If it's just an 8-game stretch, then you can find guys like Cutler, Romo, probably even Josh Freeman. If you include the 'postseason' qualifier, then that implies that he has some special 'postseason ability'.
   3760. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4362466)
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years.


Troy Aikman, but I know that won't be popular. Jake Delhomme had 6 straight excellent post season games in 2003 and 2005. Eli Manning has won 2 Super Bowls.
   3761. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4362467)
Which shows what?


You asked what team I rooted for. I was just having some fun with my answer.
   3762. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4362470)
I think Flacco is pretty clearly several giant steps behind the best QBs in the league, but "average" is selling him short. I just don't think there are very many good quarterbacks in the league right now. I doubt I could name 10 good ones before I got to Flacco. Something like (in random order): Rodgers, Brees, Brady, P. Manning, Ryan... to me it's just a big pile of good to pretty good to bad after that. You want to hang your hat on Eli, or the trio of impressive rookies, or Romo, or Stafford, or Newton before you get to Flacco, be my guest. I wouldn't really argue either way.

Personally I'm less interested in ranking those QBs than I am in seeing them play, especially "that trio of impressive rookies".** If I could only stand the teams that most of them play for (Denver? Atlanta? New Orleans? Carolina? Yuck to all of them), I'd be watching them a lot more before it got to December.

**Was I ever rooting for a Wilson-Kaepernick rematch for the NFC championship....

   3763. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4362471)
andy

neil o'donnell from 93-95 had steeler fans convinced he was a guy who could turn it up come playoff time. played great in a loss to kc. played well again the following seasons. actually didn't play well in the 95 postseason but the team won until getting blown up by dallas thanks to nd throwing some awful interceptions.

   3764. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4362472)
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years.

If it's just an 8-game stretch, then you can find guys like Cutler, Romo, probably even Josh Freeman. If you include the 'postseason' qualifier, then that implies that he has some special 'postseason ability'.


I certainly do include the postseason qualifier. If I want to see a bunch of Mr. Octobers, I'll go look for Reggie Jackson.
   3765. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:52 PM (#4362475)
nvm
   3766. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4362477)
nvm
   3767. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4362478)
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years.


Isn't the answer to this basically just any run of the mill QB who won a super bowl? Trent Dilfer.
   3768. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4362479)
Troy Aikman.


Woo hoo, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

   3769. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: February 04, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4362481)
throwing deep is very much a combination good arm, protection and being in synch with the receivers.

aaron rodgers throws a great deep ball but was thwarted this season by a mediocre to poor offensive line, receivers being in and out of the lineup and defenses obssessed with keeping everything in front of them.

flacco has all those things but the ravens also have enough of a running game and a good enough running game that teams just cannot go into a two deep shell and dare baltimore to work down the field because the ravens will do just that
   3770. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4362484)
Andy, an average quarterback is not going to have an average game every time out. He will have some good games and some bad games. When he has a string of good games at the right time, he does well in the playoffs and might even win a super bowl.

That said, I am receptive to the idea of clutch in football, where I'm not in baseball. Just because we can't find it in baseball doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other sports, although at the professional level I am skeptical. But in evaluating QBs I do take into account postseason performance and weigh it a little more heavily than regular season performance. I admit I don't have a lot of justification for that. But it's not going to turn an average quarterback into much more than that.
   3771. Nasty Nate Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4362486)
I've never really understood why kick returners can get credit for yardage over 100 yards (i.e. the "108-yard" return last night). QB's don't get more passing yards if they complete a pass to a guy in the back of the end zone, etc.
   3772. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4362490)
Isn't the answer to this basically just any run of the mill QB who won a super bowl? Trent Dilfer.


Trent Dilfer went 35-73 for 590 yards, 3TD and 1 INT in the Ravens' four-game run to their first Super Bowl title. He was still every ounce the ordinary Trent Dilfer during that winning streak.
   3773. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4362491)
I've never really understood why kick returners can get credit for yardage over 100 yards (i.e. the "108-yard" return last night). QB's don't get more passing yards if they complete a pass to a guy in the back of the end zone, etc.


Interceptions get credited that way too, Ed Reed has a 108 yard INT return. I agree it's strange that passing TDs don't count that way as well.
   3774. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4362499)
I've never really understood why kick returners can get credit for yardage over 100 yards (i.e. the "108-yard" return last night). QB's don't get more passing yards if they complete a pass to a guy in the back of the end zone, etc.


Yeah, this is silly. And then to obsess over it. "We told you it was 109 but actually it's 108 so, he only ties the record." Who cares? And why does it seem like a record such as this is being broken every two weeks, despite the fact that the back of the endzone is finite?
   3775. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4362502)
I thought Nantz brought up Ray Lewis's legal troubles with the double homicide, almost because it was obligatory to do so. But why do so? Who cares about this old story? The problem is that you guys drool over him, and the solution to that is simply to not drool over him; the solution is not to embarrass him.

God, the announcing really is terrible, in all aspects.
   3776. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4362508)
I've never really understood why kick returners can get credit for yardage over 100 yards (i.e. the "108-yard" return last night). QB's don't get more passing yards if they complete a pass to a guy in the back of the end zone, etc.

The end zone is the end zone. Once the ball crosses it, the play is dead. However, the end zone is only the end zone if it's the one you're going to. If I gain possession 3 yards deep and run it out and get to the 30, I've gained my team 33 yards (or 10, depending on how you do the math). Thus, it makes sense to me to credit longer returns. He took the ball 108 yards. It was stupid, but wonderful.

However, I thought it was very obvious it wasn't 109 and wonder if any official scoring ever actually called it 109 or if that was just Nantz getting excited.
   3777. Nasty Nate Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4362511)
However, the end zone is only the end zone if it's the one you're going to. If I gain possession 3 yards deep and run it out and get to the 30, I've gained my team 33 yards (or 10, depending on how you do the math).


No, it's the end zone in both directions because of safeties/touchbacks. The yards don't help his team until he crosses the goal liine - e.g. if he ran forward 2 yards before deciding to kneel for the touchback, he doesn't get 2 yards of kick return yardage (as far as I know).
   3778. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:32 PM (#4362514)
No, it's the end zone in both directions because of safeties/touchbacks. The yards don't help his team until he crosses the goal liine - e.g. if he ran forward 2 yards before deciding to kneel for the touchback, he doesn't get 2 yards of kick return yardage (as far as I know).


Offensive play yardage counts from the line of scrimmage. Defensive and special teams return plays count from the spot where possession of the ball is taken. Looked at it that way, it makes a little more sense.
   3779. Greg K Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4362515)
I think logic is that when he starts he's 108 yards from where he needs to be.

When a guy catches a ball 7 yards past the end-zone line he didn't need to go those 7 extra yards.

But this whole discussion misses the larger point...why on earth have 10 yard endzones? Everyone knows every sane football league in the world uses 20 yards.
   3780. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4362516)


No, it's the end zone in both directions because of safeties/touchbacks. The yards don't help his team until he crosses the goal liine - e.g. if he ran forward 2 yards before deciding to kneel for the touchback, he doesn't get 2 yards of kick return yardage (as far as I know).


I see what you're saying but he still has to cover that yardage. Sure, he could just kneel but we're assuming he doesn't. Whereas on the other end, any yards past nose of the ball over the line gets you nothing. I completely agree there is no need to get too worked up over it (though how is it being broken every two weeks, Ray?) but those end up being necessary yards covered.
   3781. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4362518)
You find me one "average" QB who's ever put together a string of postseason performances like Flacco has done over the past three years.

Isn't the answer to this basically just any run of the mill QB who won a super bowl? Trent Dilfer.


No, because aside from the fact that Dilfer rode on the Ravens' back (see SOsH's reply above), Flacco's done this for three straight postseasons, not just one.

The other three QBs mentioned have been O'Donnell, Delhomme and Aikman.

Aikman is a HoF QB who seems to be thought of as the Jim Rice of quarterbacks around here. But given his pedestrian career numbers compared to his sparkling postseason performances, I'll admit that's not a bad comparison.

Delhomme didn't match Flacco's postseason numbers (106.1 for 4 games in 2004; 82.4 for 3 games in 2006; and 39.1 for one game in 2009), and his peak consisted of one season, not three.

O'Donnell had back-to-back postseason ratings of 99.9 (1994) and 96.0 (1995), but that was for a total of only three games. In the Steelers' run to the Super Bowl in 1996 his rating was 61.6.
   3782. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:34 PM (#4362520)
But this whole discussion misses the larger point...why on earth have 10 yard endzones? Everyone knows every sane football league in the world uses 20 yards.

I would very much like the NFL to have 20 yard end zones with the goal posts still at the end line. Makes FGs less important and would open up the field on redzone plays.
   3783. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4362524)
Delhomme didn't match Flacco's postseason numbers (106.1 for 4 games in 2004; 82.4 for 3 games in 2006; and 39.1 for one game in 2009), and his peak consisted of one season, not three.

O'Donnell had back-to-back postseason ratings of 99.9 (1994) and 96.0 (1995), but that was for a total of only three games. In the Steelers' run to the Super Bowl in 1996 his rating was 61.6.


Why do you keep leaning on passer rating?
   3784. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4362526)
But this whole discussion misses the larger point...why on earth have 10 yard endzones? Everyone knows every sane football league in the world uses 20 yards.

It could be worse. The Redskins once lost an NFL championship game when Sammy Baugh's pass hit the goalpost (which then sat on the goal line) for a safety, and the final margin was 15 to 14. The Rams missed one extra point, and the other one hit the crossbar and dribbled over for the win.
   3785. Yardape Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:40 PM (#4362527)
By Expected Points Added (including playoffs) on Advanced NFL Stats, Flacco ranks 11th this year, just behind Luck and Schaub and just ahead of Romo and Stafford. That seems about right to me. 11th seems about right to me; above average, below elite.
   3786. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4362528)
Why do you keep leaning on passer rating?

It's better than the fanboy factor or the fear factor, but perhaps you can come up with something else. Should we look to see what the temperatures and wind factors were for each game? (Actually, that might be useful info.) Should we look at the video for each play and assign a unique number to each pass, taking dropped passes and blitzing pressure into account? (That would be even better, but I'll leave that to you.)
   3787. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4362530)
By Expected Points Added (including playoffs) on Advanced NFL Stats, Flacco ranks 11th this year, just behind Luck and Schaub and just ahead of Romo and Stafford. That seems about right to me. 11th seems about right to me; above average, below elite.

Which is about where I might put him, too, though I'm glad he saved his best for last. Aren't we all?
   3788. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4362531)
Andy, can you rank out the top QBs in rough order according to how you see them? Where would Flacco rank, roughly? I mean, it's not like QB rating really helps you, as his regular season rating is pedestrian. You HAVE to hang this on 3 years of postseason.
   3789. Moe Greene Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4362533)
Flacco's NFL rank in Football Outsiders's DYAR & DVOA (passing only)

2012: 17 / 17 (behind Sam Bradford, ahead of Carson Palmer in DYAR)
2011: 14 / 18 (behind Alex Smith, ahead of Cam Newton)
2010: 11 / 15 (behind Carson Palmer, ahead of Michael Vick)
2009: 14 / 17 (behind Matt Ryan, ahead of Carson Palmer)
2008: 19 / 22 (behind Matt Cassel, ahead of Seneca Wallace)

In other words, Flacco has basically been Carson Palmer in the years in which Palmer has played a full season. If that's not a consistently average QB, I don't know what is.

ETA: Late-era Palmer, of course. Being compared to a younger Palmer would make him decidedly better than average.
   3790. Famous Original Joe C Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4362535)
Aren't we all?


If Ray Lewis could somehow lose but the Ravens win, I could live with that.
   3791. DA Baracus Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4362539)
Should we look at the video for each play and assign a unique number to each pass, taking dropped passes and blitzing pressure into account? (That would be even better, but I'll leave that to you.)


Football Outsiders and Pro Football Focus already chart games and have advanced stats based on context. Advanced NFL Stats has metrics as well. The results are not favorable to Flacco.
   3792. JJ1986 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4362540)
Should we look at the video for each play and assign a unique number to each pass, taking dropped passes and blitzing pressure into account?


PFF does this.
   3793. cmd600 Posted: February 04, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4362541)
(or 10, depending on how you do the math)


IMO, this is how it should be done, even though I completely understand why it isn't. You should be getting credit for the yardage you added to help your team win. Just like net punting, which should be the primary measure for a punter, and not gross distance.
   3794. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4362561)
Andy, can you rank out the top QBs in rough order according to how you see them? Where would Flacco rank, roughly? I mean, it's not like QB rating really helps you, as his regular season rating is pedestrian. You HAVE to hang this on 3 years of postseason.

Ray, I'd love to do that, but since I base much of my ratings on what I've seen, and since I watch the NFL mostly (though not exclusively) in the postseason, I'd be doing nothing more than making incoherent guesses about QBs I've almost never seen**.

BUT, of those I have seen, I'd say that on the basis of what they've done, and not how I'd rank them in terms of whether I'd want them going forward (which would be completely different), I'd probably go, very roughly, something like this, in groupings:

Brady/Peyton/Brees/Rodgers.....Ryan/Roethlisberger.....Rivers/Schaub....Flacco/Eli.....Griffin/Wilson/Kaepernick/Luck....Vick/Smith....and then down at the bottom, Sanchez/Tebow (thanks, you ####### Romney stooge owner)

Going forward, I'd want Kaepernick, Wilson, a healthy Griffin, Rodgers, Ryan, Luck, Flacco, Brees, Brady, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Eli, Smith, a flyer on Flynn, Peyton, and throw the last three in the dumpster. Obviously age is a major factor here, and if Griffin turns out to be a candidate for the glue factory, then forget where I put him above.

And obviously Stafford and Newton should be up there somewhere, but as I said, I've hardly ever seen them play.

**Newton, Stafford, the Arizona guy, the Rams guy, the Bucs guy, the Vick replacement, Da Bears guy, the Vikings guy, the Fish guy, the Bills guy, the Bengals guy, the Browns guy, the team formerly known as the Oilers guy, the Jags guy, the Chiefs guy, the Raiders guy. (Hmmmm, somehow I think I'm convincing myself to contract the NFL to half its current size.)
   3795. bunyon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4362586)
(Hmmmm, somehow I think I'm convincing myself to contract the NFL to half its current size.)

Well, it is dying.
   3796. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4362595)

I thought Nantz brought up Ray Lewis's legal troubles with the double homicide, almost because it was obligatory to do so. But why do so? Who cares about this old story? The problem is that you guys drool over him, and the solution to that is simply to not drool over him; the solution is not to embarrass him.


The weird thing is sportscasters and commentators who say they are only bringing up something "because it's what everyone's talking about", as if they themselves aren't driving the conversation.
   3797. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4362607)
That deadspin article linked to above is a great read. It highlights most of the reasons why these studio shows are not watchable and not watched (at least, not by me).
   3798. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 04, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4362627)
That deadspin article linked to above is a great read. It highlights most of the reasons why these studio shows are not watchable and not watched (at least, not by me).

He certainly isn't the worst of the blabbermouths but what, precisely, is the point of James Brown?
   3799. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 04, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4362632)
He certainly isn't the worst of the blabbermouths but what, precisely, is the point of James Brown?


I dunno. Tour guide? Sort of a moderator type of role? The others at least pretend to do analysis.

One of the huge problems is the bad, canned jokes. Tossing the football -- and then dropping it on purpose. The lame verbal jokes. The laughing over nothing, the fake laughing, the pretense that they are providing something useful to you. It is just a horrible presentation, from start to finish. And they come on before the game, during halftime, after the game. Who needs it?
   3800. Tripon Posted: February 04, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4362646)
James Brown for whatever reason brings in ratings. When he made the switch from FOX to CBS, CBS became first among the pregame shows and stole that spot from FOX.
Page 38 of 80 pages ‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6238 - 12:18pm, Aug 30)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogRockies' Troy Tulowitzki bent on playing shortstop: "I will retire before I move"
(23 - 12:13pm, Aug 30)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(5 - 12:05pm, Aug 30)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogThe First Hundred PAs: The Curious Case of Cubs Rookie Javier Baez
(6 - 12:05pm, Aug 30)
Last: slothinator

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(17 - 12:02pm, Aug 30)
Last: BDC

NewsblogWhat's Wrong With Baseball?
(31 - 11:58am, Aug 30)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(866 - 11:55am, Aug 30)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(56 - 11:12am, Aug 30)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-29-2014
(46 - 10:34am, Aug 30)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogRobothal: Tension growing between Astros' manager, GM
(42 - 9:46am, Aug 30)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogWatch a Japanese baseball player try to hit a 186 mph fastball (Video)
(23 - 9:30am, Aug 30)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(46 - 9:26am, Aug 30)
Last: steagles

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(64 - 9:14am, Aug 30)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(156 - 2:28am, Aug 30)
Last: Jimmy

NewsblogIndians Sign Russell Branyan
(13 - 2:13am, Aug 30)
Last: Lindor Truffles

Page rendered in 0.5585 seconds
53 querie(s) executed