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 | 8367 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 67 of 84 pages ‹ First  < 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 >  Last ›
   6601. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4637786)
Ray will never stop,


Nobody has addressed the point I made about the Patriots in #6593.
   6602. jmurph Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4637787)
Flip (oops, unnecessary).
   6603. jmurph Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4637789)
One game doesn't matter, but the Saints-Seahawks game featured heavy rain.


Ray, we are talking about the potential outcomes of one game, not a 100 game series between two teams.
   6604. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4637793)
the amusing side note to the nfc championship game is if chatter is to be believed if the respective head coaches got into a brawl and each killed the other their peers around the league would cheer both the process and the outcome
   6605. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4637797)
I understand that Harbaugh is not well-liked but I thought Carroll was considered pretty affable. Is that not true?

Just some things to add to the discussion for what they are worth. Brady is 2-4 at Denver in his career and the Pats were 4-4 on the road this year.
   6606. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4637798)
russlan

i put it in the category for both as professional jealously
   6607. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4637799)

Is it time again for my "all that matters is the QB and the head coach" lecture series?


Brady isn't Brady, though. I think he's hurt and he definitely has lost a bit. There's a reason the Patriots haven't relied on his arm the last few games. He's still good for a few 'how did he do that?' throws each game, but I think Manning right now is much better than Brady. And I say that as a Patriots diehard who hates the Broncos.
   6608. DA Baracus Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4637802)
my guess is that the media keeps it as a legit concern even if the pats end up winning the super bowl


Yeah but so what. "The media" doesn't matter.

but it sure seems like the combo of coaching/scheme are mitigating the individual abilities gap


Yeah, they have a great coach who consistently gets the most out of what he's got.
   6609. Nasty Nate Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4637805)
I think he's hurt and he definitely has lost a bit. There's a reason the Patriots haven't relied on his arm the last few games.


I don't think the reason is a Brady injury. I think the reasons were the rain, the healthy RB's, and injured or incarcerated star TE's.
   6610. DA Baracus Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4637806)
Is it time again for my "all that matters is the QB and the head coach" lecture series?


Why did Dan Marino never win a Super Bowl?
   6611. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4637819)
To be fair to Ray, I think his stance that the NFL is a different league now than it was when Marino was playing.
   6612. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4637824)
Every time I've seen Brady this year, whenever a defender draws a bead on him he immediately falls backward onto his ass before the defender gets there, hurling the ball at the feet of a running back if one is nearby. I've never seen a quarterback so zealously avoid taking a hit. So it would not surprise me to learn that he's been playing with a significant injury. Hiding a real injury when one happens is exactly the point to Belichick listing Brady as probable every week for ten years.
   6613. jmurph Posted: January 13, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4637826)
To be fair to Ray, I think his stance that the NFL is a different league now than it was when Marino was playing.


I know it's just a turn of phrase, but no one is being unfair to Ray. I've got nothing against him. But to read his posts, you'd think Brady would have 6-8 (or even more) rings. After being aggressively wrong about Eagles/Saints and Saints/Seahawks, he's just pretending those results don't matter.

I'm a Patriots fan, so I'm very much aware that having the best QB/coach does not always guarantee a win.
   6614. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4637830)
Is it time again for my "all that matters is the QB and the head coach" lecture series?


What are the Eagles doing right now?

I think they're playing the Saints in the 5th Runnerup Bowl out there in Honolulu.

----------------------------------------------

Ray will never stop, until the NFL switches to seasons whose length provides a sufficient sample size to disprove his opinions.

And guaranteed dry and windless weather conditions in January. Don't forget that.
   6615. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4637831)

Why did Dan Marino never win a Super Bowl?


To be fair, he was stuck with Don Shula, and when did he ever accomplish anything?
   6616. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4637834)
I'm a Patriots fan, so I'm very much aware that having the best QB/coach does not always guarantee a win.


You're also aware that it does make you more likely to win any given game than any other team, as a 12-year sample demonstrates.

There's a lot of randomness in the NFL.

Ray likes to frame all his points as absolutes, but out there in the real world I don't think it's disputable than in 2013 the two things that make the largest impact on your probability to win a game are the quarterback and the coach.

If we're cherry-picking one game samples I would point out that the Bengals really shouldn't have been big favorites over the Chargers last weekend. The Chargers had a much better quarterback and at least a draw at coach.
   6617. jmurph Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4637838)
You're also aware that it does make you more likely to win any given game than any other team, as a 12-year sample demonstrates.


Of course, that's inarguable. Already stipulated on the previous page.

EDIT: And to your addition, no one is arguing with those things. Ray is derisively dismissing people who point out that things like "defense" and "WRs" matter in a particular game. He is wrong to do so.
   6618. jmurph Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4637845)
If we're cherry-picking one game samples


Zeth, one game samples are literally the entire subject being discussed. There is no cherry-picking.
   6619. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4637848)
Why did Dan Marino never win a Super Bowl?


He lacked THE WILL TO WIN
   6620. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4637869)
The Patriots chances of winning just got significantly better. Chris Harris, the Broncos best corner, is out for the game. That leaves chargers with Champ Bailey and Quenton Jammer as their starting cornerbacks which would be a good thing if this was 2009 not 2014.
   6621. AuntBea Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4637870)
Games are still a week away, but I am also taking Seattle and New England, the latter at least against the (current) 4 point point spread.

The Denver spread keeps dropping, and now one of their starting secondary has been ruled out of the game (Chris Harris).
   6622. The District Attorney Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4637874)
Peyton Manning said "Omaha" 44 times yesterday.

We certainly appreciate all the love from #PeytonManning :) #OmahaOmaha — Official Omaha Info (@VisitOmaha) January 12, 2014

Woke up to 652 missed calls from #PeytonManning. #OmahaOmaha — Omaha Steaks (@OmahaSteaks) January 13, 2014
   6623. jmurph Posted: January 13, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4637881)
I haven't paid much attention to Denver the past couple weeks: what's the deal with Welker? Is he injured (aside from the eleventy concussions, I mean)?
   6624. Srul Itza Posted: January 13, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4637892)
One game doesn't matter, but the Saints-Seahawks game featured heavy rain.


It rained in Seattle in the winter. Who could have predicted that?

As has been noted, play-off football takes place in December and January, and not always in a dome or a warm weather environment. In fact, domes seem to be on the way out. If you can't run the ball in those circumstances, you are in trouble.

Yeah, I want the best coach and the best quarterback. But when the calender turns to December, I also want to be able to grind it out when the conditions change.
   6625. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 13, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4637908)
what i appreciated was the good tackling

when fans gripe about poor tackling that typically (to my mind) be tied to lesser talented players and/or subpar coaching.

   6626. zenbitz Posted: January 13, 2014 at 07:54 PM (#4638178)
It's pretty simplistic to say:

Patriots were good, Patriots had lots of injuries to Non-Brady components - ergo non-Brady components unimportant for Patriots success ergo non-QB/Coach components unimportant for All teams success.

First off - every team -- every PLAYOFF team has had key injuries. It's football. People get injured. Good teams have depth and/or have some tough games compensating. In the AFC Pats/Colts preview last week, FO pointed out that IN THE LAST 3 Games Pats offense was just as good +/- Gronk (adjusted for opponents) Does that mean Gronk was no better than his backups? That's one interpretation. Also to consider that they were running at like a +40% offensive DVOA weeks 7-17 (first 7 with Gronk). However, their offense was decidedly AVERAGE weeks 1-6 (of course they went 5-1 anyway, with some gaudy rushing totals), including a win over the Saints, 3 patsies, and the eventually 8-8 Jets)

Maybe the statement you want to make Ray - is "Having a HOF QB like Brady (or incidentally, P. Manning) and a magician as a coach will allow you to compensate for missing your tight end". Everyone (?) agrees that the QB is the hardest single position to replace. That makes it the most *vunerable* to disruption - the least *stable* position if you will. It doesn't make the other positions unimportant, just more robust.

Unlike baseball, football is pretty non-linear (aside from yards = points, and points = wins).

It's pretty mathematically clear that preventing points is just as valuable as scoring them (pythagoras) And having a good offense helps you prevent points as well (and good defense -> score points). That's just field position.


   6627. AuntBea Posted: January 13, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4638271)
DVOA


Am I wrong, or is DVOA merely a stat that describes how well a team actually "did" in the past (in other words, it is almost entirely backward looking)?

Shouldn't each component of DVOA be regressed before being used for predictive purposes? As an example, we know interceptions are extremely important in determining who wins a game. However, a season's worth of interception statistics need to be heavily regressed before being used for prediction. For example, Brett Favre's full-year interception totals ranged from 7 to 29. A team that has a regular season high turnover margin is presumably unlikely to match that in the post-season, as some of it is likely due to random factors beyond the team's control. If DVOA gives full credit for these events it will not properly predict the future.

I don't see any evidence anywhere on FO that each component of DVOA is regressed separately. It's nice to know which teams have "performed well" under the sort of normalization they do on play-by-play stats, but what really matters is how well the team will do in the future.
   6628. JJ1986 Posted: January 13, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4638273)
I think DVOA ignores who recovers fumbles (or at least regresses it), so the randomness of turnovers is somewhat accounted for.
   6629. AuntBea Posted: January 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM (#4638277)
I think DVOA ignores who recovers fumbles (or at least regresses it), so the randomness of turnovers is somewhat accounted for.


They talk about this continuously, which makes me think it is the only thing they "regress". But in fact they don't think of it as regression, rather that the offense or defense doesn't "deserve" full backward-looking credit for the event, because there was luck involved (in fact, they call it "fumble luck").

Philosophically at least these are quite distinct. The process of regression is agnostic about who deserves what "credit" for past events, and is only concerned with predicting future events. "Fumble luck" is not really geared toward prediction, but rather whether to assign past credit to the recovering team for something they only sort of actually "did". (As an aside, as far as I can tell they fully penalize a team for fumbling and reward a team for forcing a fumble, it is only the recovery that is subject to "fumble luck".) The site's focus on "fumble luck" is another reason I think they don't fully understand or care about regression.
   6630. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 13, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4638282)
Brady isn't Brady, though.


That's bad argumentation, man. You can't support Ray's "it's all the QB and coach" talking point and then say "but Brady's not Brady so that doesn't count against us."

The Patriots were faster and smarter to exploit the pass friendly league. They had the personnel to do it, and a better all around team than the Colts had when both Manning and Brady were in their primes. The league certainly seems to be settling out again, with defenses figuring out the pass-first offenses over time. The best teams today have strong running games.
   6631. puck Posted: January 13, 2014 at 10:52 PM (#4638296)
HW: Fair points in 6578, but NE is literally running out 4-5 of their intended defensive starters. That's a lot of quality players to replace.

How many of the choice defensive starters is Denver running out? Can't be much more. Couple linemen (Vickerson and Wolfe), LB (Woolyard and Miller), safety (Moore), CB (Harris) are out. Could be more, I don't follow football very closely.
   6632. SteveF Posted: January 13, 2014 at 11:33 PM (#4638313)
I'd say New England is really only missing Kelly, Wilfork, and Mayo on defense. Spikes would have been replaced by now with or without injury. All their DBs are healthy (or as healthy as you can be this time of year in football) for a change. Of those 3, the biggest loss is probably Wilfork, though Siliga has been pretty good at stopping inside runs in his limited time. Frankly, I don't think New England is much worse on defense now than they were at the start of the season. (Which isn't to say they wouldn't be better if they had Mayo, Wilfork, and Kelly -- just that some of the players they've used to replace those guys have stepped up in a way that has made their defense better in other areas -- e.g. the emergence of Collins, Siliga, and lately Hightower.)

I would say Denver will be more materially impacted by their losses on defense going forward.

New England suffered much worse losses on the offensive side of the ball. It's pretty amazing they were the second highest scoring team in the NFL, even if they were closer to #30 than they were to #1.
   6633. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:00 AM (#4638324)
New England suffered much worse losses on the offensive side of the ball. It's pretty amazing they were the second highest scoring team in the NFL, even if they were closer to #30 than they were to #1.

I read that and thought it was amazing. Unfortunately, that's not true. New England was actually third in the NFL in scoring as the Bears outscored them by a single point. The difference between Denver and Chicago was 161 points. The difference between the Jaguars (30th in scoring) and Chicago was 198 points. So close but not exactly true.

Craziest stat I read today: Colin Kaepernick has more road playoff victories as a 49er than Steve Young and Joe Montana combined.
   6634. SteveF Posted: January 14, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4638357)
Jaguars (30th in scoring)

Jaguars were 32nd in scoring. 8x4=32. But yeah. It's not 30th. It's more like 29th.
   6635. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 14, 2014 at 01:06 AM (#4638358)
Craziest stat I read today: Colin Kaepernick has more road playoff victories as a 49er than Steve Young and Joe Montana combined.

That's probably because those Montana and Young teams got to play most all of their playoff games at home.

My fun fact is this: In the postseason, Phil Simms had a winning record against Joe Montana, and his Giants teams outscored the Niners in those games by 76 to 27.
   6636. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 14, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4638420)
My bad SteveF.

Yeah, Phil Simms is to Joe Montana as Eli Manning is to Tom Brady. Although those Giant teams were great.

   6637. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4638422)
My fun fact is that Joe Montana played in 4 super bowls and won them all!

But holy crap there were some great teams in the 80's.
   6638. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4638426)
I read that and thought it was amazing. Unfortunately, that's not true. New England was actually third in the NFL in scoring as the Bears outscored them by a single point. The difference between Denver and Chicago was 161 points. The difference between the Jaguars (30th in scoring) and Chicago was 198 points. So close but not exactly true.


That's amazing nonetheless. I like stats like that--reminds me of my favorite random baseball fact: Steve Carlton, second all-time in walks issued, is closer to 176th on the list than he is to first.
   6639. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4638432)
But holy crap there were some great teams in the 80's.


For all the parity baseball had in the 80s, the NFL had none. Fun fact: for 8 straight years, the Super Bowl pitted the San Francisco 49ers against the Denver Broncos.
   6640. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4638434)
for 8 straight years, the Super Bowl pitted the San Francisco 49ers against the Denver Broncos.

ag1

what am I missing in the wording? because I read that for 8 rows in a row these two teams played one another.

   6641. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4638435)
For all the parity baseball had in the 80s, the NFL had none. Fun fact: for 8 straight years, the Super Bowl pitted the San Francisco 49ers against the Denver Broncos.

That would have gotten boring, even for me. The 84 49ers, were, of course, the best team of the decade, but who was second best? That would be a tough call, I think. 86 Giants? 88 Niners? 85 Bears? Also, who would be the best AFC team of the decade?
   6642. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4638437)
shooty

do you understand what ag1 is trying to say?

yes, I am having an old man moment. I am confused
   6643. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4638441)
do you understand what ag1 is trying to say?

I think so, but I'm going off on my own tangent. I have never given thought to the best AFC team of the 80's before because the NFC was so dominant that decade and all the talk of the time was about the great NFC teams. The '83 Raiders were pretty great, the 84 Dolphins, the 88 Bengals and one of those Broncos teams would have to be in the running.
   6644. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4638443)
All of the best teams of the 80s had to be Niners teams, right? Because the Bears and Giants were fairly limited offensively, if I'm not mistaken.
   6645. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4638448)
Craziest stat I read today: Colin Kaepernick has more road playoff victories as a 49er than Steve Young and Joe Montana combined.


And more Superbowl losses and Superbowl interceptions than they do.
   6646. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4638454)
An article on the 88 Bengals

Reading this probably is what got me thinking about great teams of the 80's. Sam Wyche!
   6647. Howie Menckel Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4638457)

The 1982-87 Redskins went 66-22 in the regular season, 11-3 in the playoffs, and went 2-1 in Super Bowls, but rarely if ever get mentioned.
   6648. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4638461)
do you understand what ag1 is trying to say?


I was making a joke. There was a small handful of teams that played in the Super Bowl in the 80s, with the Broncos and Niners among those teams.

That would have gotten boring, even for me. The 84 49ers, were, of course, the best team of the decade, but who was second best? That would be a tough call, I think. 86 Giants? 88 Niners? 85 Bears? Also, who would be the best AFC team of the decade?


Its kinda crazy those Bears only made one Super Bowl. Can they be the second best team of the decade? Washington won two Super Bowls in the decade, I think they would have a better claim to fame.

I'd say the Raiders are probably the best AFC team, followed by the Broncos and then Dolphins.
   6649. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4638465)
Oh, you're saying best team by season, not best franchise over the decade. Never mind.
   6650. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4638466)
Its kinda crazy those Bears only made one Super Bowl. Can they be the second best team of the decade?


They were the most loathsome and obnoxious team of the decade though.
   6651. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4638471)
The 1982-87 Redskins went 66-22 in the regular season, 11-3 in the playoffs, and went 2-1 in Super Bowls, but rarely if ever get mentioned.

They get mentioned all the time as one of the great teams of the decade, but I'm thinking specifically of single year teams and I'm not sure any of the Redskins teams were as good as some of the 49er teams or the 85 Bears or 86 Giants. It doesn't help that two of the Redskins greatest teams came in strike years. For the whole decade, I think they're the 49ers only challenger, though.
   6652. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4638476)
All of the best teams of the 80s had to be Niners teams, right? Because the Bears and Giants were fairly limited offensively, if I'm not mistaken.


While true, this sort of misses the point. Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson were also fairly limited offensively, but had years when they were the most valuable players in the league. "Balance" doesn't matter for winning in football. If 80% of the value above replacement in the Giants and Bears was in their defense, as long as the end result was as good as (or better than) the Niners, who cares?
   6653. Kurt Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4638477)
All of the best teams of the 80s had to be Niners teams, right? Because the Bears and Giants were fairly limited offensively, if I'm not mistaken.


The '86 Giants had a good offense; the '85 Bears had a terrific offense. 28ppg (2nd in the league), and then of course 46 in the Super Bowl against a good defense.
   6654. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4638478)
They were the most loathsome and obnoxious team of the decade though.

They were ahead of their time with the self aggrandizing. Pioneers!
   6655. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM (#4638484)
The 84 49ers, were, of course, the best team of the decade, but who was second best?


Jack Morris.
   6656. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4638494)
The 1982-87 Redskins went 66-22 in the regular season, 11-3 in the playoffs, and went 2-1 in Super Bowls, but rarely if ever get mentioned.


They get mentioned all the time as one of the great teams of the decade, but I'm thinking specifically of single year teams and I'm not sure any of the Redskins teams were as good as some of the 49er teams or the 85 Bears or 86 Giants. It doesn't help that two of the Redskins greatest teams came in strike years. For the whole decade, I think they're the 49ers only challenger, though.

While it's slipping into the next decade, the 1991 Redskins should be right up there in the conversation for all time greatest single year teams.

First in points scored
Second in points allowed
First in points differential
First in net turnovers
14-4-1 against the point spread
Only two losses were by a total of five points.
107-41 postseason points differential
338-157 points differential against teams with winning records

Eddie Epstein's book on Dominance among single season teams ranks them second only to the 1985 Bears, but for balance between offense and defense, I'd go with the 1991 Redskins.
   6657. Howie Menckel Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4638495)

"Its kinda crazy those Bears only made one Super Bowl."
After winning the 1985 Super Bowl season, hey lost in the playoffs in 1986 and 1987 to - yep, the Redskins.

   6658. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4638497)
Since we're on the subject of self agrandizing jackasses...

3. Colin Kaepernick

Why to dislike him: Even Terrell Owens would think Kaepernicking is too self-indulgent.
   6659. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4638499)
Since we're on the subject of self agrandizing jackasses...

Is he bragging about his unbeatable skill for melody?
   6660. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4638501)
All four remaining teams in the playoffs are on the Chiefs schedule next year. So yea, I'll take the "under" on their win total.

I'll take the Pats +4.5 and Seattle -3.5
   6661. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4638502)
Why to dislike him: Jim Harbaugh is a hothead. He whines to refs like he’s playing point guard for Mike Krzyzewski (or like he is Mike Krzyzewski). He keeps that Sharpie around his neck like a doofus. He’s loud, brash and has no postgame decorum. He wears turtlenecks tucked into pleated khakis. If Johnny from The Karate Kid were an NFL coach, he’d be Jim Harbaugh.

From Rickey!'s link. It made me chuckle.
   6662. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4638510)
Just to add to the flames, Eddie Epstein's "safermetric" approach ranks these as the top 12 single season teams:

1. 1985 Bears
2. 1991 Redskins
3. 1979 Steelers
4. 1962 Packers
5. 1989 49ers
6. 1996 Packers
7. 1972 Dolphins
8. 1994 49ers
9. 1971 Cowboys
10. 1999 Rams
11/12 (tie) 1955 Browns / 1958 Colts

Lots of counterintuitive choices, but I thought I'd just throw it out there. The book is Dominance: The Best Seasons of Football's Greatest Teams, and it's well worth reading.
   6663. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4638511)
bitter

the forrest Gregg coached packers were a rotten bunch. lots of cheap hits, lots of big talk with small play. the lineman throwing the bears qb down on his head. ken stills taking shots in the secondary that even then were considered egregious.

just ugly
   6664. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4638514)
After winning the 1985 Super Bowl season, hey lost in the playoffs in 1986 and 1987 to - yep, the Redskins.

With both games played at Soldier Field.
   6665. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4638515)
Lots of silliness above. My point is that quarterback/head coach explains roughly 95% of a team's success or lack thereof. I cited Brady/Belichick this year. That does not mean that you can use it to accurately predict a single game (thus, the silliness above). Obviously the better team doesn't always win a single game. This isn't the NBA.
   6666. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4638525)
Ray, how do you pinpoint who the best coach and who the best quarterback are? That seems very subjective. I think you're risking a garbage in, garbage out theory. Also, while I agree with you coach/qb is very important, I think 95% is over stating it.
   6667. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4638528)
Lots of silliness above. My point is that quarterback/head coach explains roughly 95% of a team's success or lack thereof. I cited Brady/Belichick this year. That does not mean that you can use it to accurately predict a single game (thus, the silliness above)

You must mean silliness like picking the Eagles win the NFC and picking the Saints to crush the Seahawks. You're a much better entertainer than you are a prognosticator, but don't let that stop you.
   6668. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4638530)
Basically, if Ray's predictions are wrong it's because of randomness not because his theory is wrong. If they are right, it's because his theory is correct.

I am being a hypocrite about this but really there's absolutely no need to go on with this "discussion". Nothing will convince Ray otherwise and nothing will convince the majority here who disagree with his theory. It's pointless.
   6669. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4638541)
Basically, if Ray's prediction are wrong it's because of randomness not because his theory is wrong. If they are right, it's because his theory is correct.

In defense of Ray, every tip sheet guru from Mort Olshan up through Danny Sheridan has used the same modus operandi. They're always a lot better at picking last week's winners than they are at picking the winners of the games that haven't yet been played.
   6670. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4638542)
I am being a hypocrite about this but really there's absolutely no need to go on with this "discussion".


Maybe so. I just find it interesting that people who have watched this game all their lives don't understand what they're seeing.

Of course, it's not all that surprising to me. To use an example, baseball writers and even executives for years watched and covered the game and didn't understand what they were watching (e.g., the problems/limitations of RBIs and pitcher wins and batting average, etc.). Many fans and writers still don't understand, years after the stathead revolution.

So understanding football isn't your thing. It doesn't make you bad people, even though you feel the need to mock me over your own shortcomings. It's still interesting to discuss the issues with you.
   6671. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4638546)
Ray, how do you pinpoint who the best coach and who the best quarterback are? That seems very subjective.


I think QB play is pretty objective*, but coaching is really subjective. And often outcome oriented. For an example see the Martz discussion a while back, he won so he MUST be a good coach.

* Within large enough categories. Distinguishing within those categories is difficult though, obviously. Suggesting the Pats should be favored just because Brady is better than Manning is silly**, both are great QBs.

**Note: I don't think anyone is actually doing that, it is just an example.
   6672. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4638549)
Craziest stat I read today: Colin Kaepernick has more road playoff victories as a 49er than Steve Young and Joe Montana combined.


Of course, that shows why the others were better quarterbacks: they had their teams into the playoffs with home field advantage.
   6673. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4638560)
I just find it interesting that people who have watched this game all their lives don't understand what they're seeing.


Or, you're wrong. That's always a possibility, even if you haven't considered it. (-:

There's no doubt the QB is the most important position, by far, and the coach is hugely important. The idea that defense (and every other position on offense, plus special teams) is less than 5 percent of the equation is batshit insane, which a list of many, many Super Bowl teams should demonstrate.

   6674. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4638567)
Of course, that shows why the others were better quarterbacks: they had their teams into the playoffs with home field advantage.

Ray, you cray cray! Young and Montana were better QB's than Kaep because they were better QB's than Kaep. He's fine, but you're comparing him to two of the best of all time. That said, he's only been a starting QB for a year and a half and the only reason they were on the road this year is the refs made a bizarre roughing the passer call in New Orleans that cost them the game. Also, while Carolina, Atlanta and this year's version of the Packers are fine teams, they aren't the same quality of some of the teams Montana and Young had to face on the road-Gibbs' Redskins, Parcells' Giants, the Cowboys juggernaut of the 90's. You are really trying to oversimplify things.
   6675. Nasty Nate Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4638570)
Maybe so. I just find it interesting that people who have watched this game all their lives don't understand what they're seeing.

Of course, it's not all that surprising to me. To use an example, baseball writers and even executives for years watched and covered the game and didn't understand what they were watching (e.g., the problems/limitations of RBIs and pitcher wins and batting average, etc.). Many fans and writers still don't understand, years after the stathead revolution.


Wow, such amazing arrogance - especially because time and time again you have shown that you don't understand what you are watching, whether it be baseball or anything else.
   6676. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4638571)
That said, he's only been a starting QB for a year and a half and the only reason they were on the road this year is the refs made a bizarre roughing the passer call in New Orleans that cost them the game.

Which was because the refs realized that Brees is a better QB than Kaepernick and should be rewarded.
   6677. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4638579)
SoSH, you can quibble with the 5%. Maybe it's 7%. Whatever. The point remains.

And the point is not that defense and special teams doesn't matter (although near as I can tell special teams is utterly random most of the time, which is kind of the point -- you can't control for it or plan for it). The point is that virtually all players other than the QB are at replacement level. (There are rare exceptions like perhaps Gronkowski.) Because above a certain threshold of talent an added spec of talent doesn't lead to any significant gains.

As I've said before, if I played the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, I would lose badly and not win a point. If I played the #100 ranked player I would lose badly. If I played the #200 ranked played I would lose badly. Now, maybe the #200 ranked player amazingly double faults and I win a point or two. But there is no significant difference between #1 and #200 for these purposes. That's the point. Every player except the QB is ranked #1 or #200 but it doesn't matter because they are all above a certain threshold of talent.

This is so simple and basic to me that it's intriguing people don't understand it.
   6678. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4638581)
As I've said before, if I played the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, I would lose badly and not win a point. If I played the #100 ranked player I would lose badly. If I played the #200 ranked played I would lose badly. Now, maybe the #200 ranked player amazingly double faults and I win a point or two. But there is no significant difference between #1 and #200 for these purposes. That's the point. Every player except the QB is ranked #1 or #200 but it doesn't matter because they are all above a certain threshold of talen


1. Football is not tennis. Your comparison is broken from the start.

2. Take the best QB in the league. Put him behind an O-line with a bad left tackle, playing a team with a reasonably strong defensive pass rush. Even God can't pass downfield from his ass, Ray.
   6679. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4638583)
This is so simple and basic to me that it's intriguing people don't understand it.

Well, it might be because it's hilariously wrong.
   6680. JJ1986 Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4638585)
As I've said before, if I played the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, I would lose badly and not win a point. If I played the #100 ranked player I would lose badly. If I played the #200 ranked played I would lose badly. Now, maybe the #200 ranked player amazingly double faults and I win a point or two. But there is no significant difference between #1 and #200 for these purposes. That's the point. Every player except the QB is ranked #1 or #200 but it doesn't matter because they are all above a certain threshold of talent.


What does this have to do with professionals playing professionals? Almost any player in the NFL (not Blaine Gabbert) would be a star against college or CFL players, but that doesn't mean they're all at the same level.
   6681. JJ1986 Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4638587)
Take the best QB in the league. Put him behind an O-line with a bad left tackle, playing a team with a reasonably strong defensive pass rush. Even God can't pass downfield from his ass, Ray.


Phillip Rivers was terrible for 2 years behind a broken O-line. Now this season he's magically good again.
   6682. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4638591)
brett favre didn't have a terrible 2005 because favre suddenly got awful or old. favre was awful because his interior line was a train wreck.

   6683. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4638594)
Ray,

We have countless examples of Super Bowl champions that were built not on great coaching/QB combos, but on stellar defenses or offensive lines or full packages. The 85 Bears had an overrated coach, a serviceable QB and put together one of the best teams of the Super Bowl era. The Cowboys juggernaut of the 90s won its third title with Barry ####### Switzer, and a QB that was a glorified game manager. The Ravens won non-fluke Super Bowls with Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer, the Bucs with a QB that was as anonymous as his name.

And the Seahawks were the best team in football this year with the top-ranked defense and a passing game that was in the bottom third.

As usual, your explanations are simply too simple.

   6684. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4638599)
Phillip Rivers was terrible for 2 years behind a broken O-line. Now this season he's magically good again


The Atlanta Falcons went from 13-3 to 4-12 due to the fact that they lost their offensive line, their deep threat wide receiver (and entire receiver corps for half the year), starting running back (for half the year) and their entire middle linebacking corps. The ONLY guy to stay on the field all year was their star QB. By Ray's logic, they should have been 10-6, worst case scenario. After all, they didn't lose Matt Ryan or the coaching staff.
   6685. bunyon Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4638605)
I realize his example is going to get dog-piled but it's astonishing to draw the conclusion that the top 200 in any sport are all the same because they'd all mop the floor with an amateur, even a good amateur.

The question is #1 vs. #10 or #5 vs. #200 not how any of them would do against #4,382,123. Also, as in baseball, replacement level isn't "average". Replacement level can be quite low. I would agree that the difference between the third best right tackle and the 5th best right tackle probably isn't significant. But the difference between the 3rd best RT and the 46th best is.
   6686. Ace of Kevin Bass Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4638608)
Montana and Young were actually a combined 1-6 in road playoff games. I was surprised they'd played that many.
   6687. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4638614)
I realize his example is going to get dog-piled but it's astonishing to draw the conclusion that the top 200 in any sport are all the same because they'd all mop the floor with an amateur, even a good amateur.


What Ray is claiming is that any position other than QB could be manned by a second string SEC player - an "amateur". It's apparently one of those subjects wherein the robot has made its conclusions and is impervious to human reasoning henceforth.
   6688. bunyon Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4638616)
Also, I think Peyton Manning's career sheds some light on the importance of defense and special teams. He is clearly the best QB of his generation. But this year we're treated to many stories of his choking in last year's playoffs. But he had a fine game. If the Broncos safety doesn't completely brain freeze, he likely goes to the Super Bowl.

How important was the safety there?

I confess to not being a football guy (so I may well have no idea what I'm talking about) but it looks to me like a game where things don't even out and one player failing at a critical time can, and does, make all the difference. In baseball, the season is long and stuff does even out (more). It's hard for one misplay to doom a team. It's one reason I like baseball a lot more than football.
   6689. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4638624)
2. Take the best QB in the league. Put him behind an O-line with a bad left tackle, playing a team with a reasonably strong defensive pass rush. Even God can't pass downfield from his ass, Ray.


Not the best QB in the league, but you just described Andrew Luck this year, and Ben Roethlisberger his entire career.

So all you have to do is be a 6'5" athletic freak that can shrug off defensive linemen, and suddenly the offensive line isn't so important anymore!

Peyton Manning's an interesting case, because as the quarterback of teams almost always favored to win, he has a losing career record in the playoffs, in a sample larger than a season's worth of games. I postulate that this is less attributable to his own unclutchiness as generally supposed, and more attributable to the fact he spent most of his career on profoundly untalented teams, going 13-3 every year with teams that would have gone 4-12 with an average quarterback (and did go straight from 10-6 to 2-14 as soon as he left the lineup).
   6690. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4638627)
What Ray is claiming is that any position other than QB could be manned by a second string SEC player - an "amateur".


That is specifically NOT what I claimed. You need to be NFL level talent. Above THAT, then, no, it essentially doesn't matter.

Put Brady and Belichick on any bad team -- Houston, Atlanta, Tennessee, whatever -- and they will win 10-14 games. Do nothing else except swap them, and they will win 10-14 games. This isn't about "broken offensive lines." Please.
   6691. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4638628)
I have to assume that Ray is trolling at this point.


   6692. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4638631)
I have to assume that Ray is trolling at this point.


Enjoy the rest of your day, fellas.
   6693. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4638633)
I have to assume that Ray is trolling at this point.


Yeah I used to think the piling on was always a bit gratuitous, but these last few posts are just crazy town. They share no connection with actual results of actual football games.
   6694. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4638634)
Ray is fundamentally on the right track but carrying everything to extreme levels of hyperbole and absolutes, for reasons known only to him.
   6695. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4638639)
I have to assume that Ray is trolling at this point.


No. He's just a Patriots fanboy.
   6696. jmurph Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4638642)
No. He's just a Patriots fanboy.


I'm also a Patriots fanboy! They have won only (yes, I know) 3 Super Bowls because they occasionally face teams that are better at football than they are, even though they almost never face a team with a better QB/coach combo.
   6697. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4638643)
Ray is fundamentally on the right track but carrying everything to extreme levels of hyperbole and absolutes

Agreed. No doubt coach/qb is hugely important but 1. It's not everything 2. The gap between, say, the top 10 QB's and the top 10 coaches in the NFL is probably not as pronounced as Ray assumes. Even a team with a Geno Smith/Rex Ryan pairing can win half their games...
   6698. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4638647)
Montana and Young were actually a combined 1-6 in road playoff games. I was surprised they'd played that many.


Montana was also 1-2 in road playoff games for KC. That one win was the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game.
   6699. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 14, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4638649)
That one win was the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game.

Jesus. That is amazing.

Sporting KC forever, I guess?
   6700. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: January 14, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4638657)

Montana was also 1-2 in road playoff games for KC. That one win was the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game.


That was the Glove Game against Pittsburgh, right?
Page 67 of 84 pages ‹ First  < 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(360 - 9:52pm, Oct 21)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(2 - 9:50pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogAs Focus Faded and Losses Piled Up, Royals Change Their Game
(1 - 9:43pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(39 - 9:32pm, Oct 21)
Last: rlc

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(314 - 8:51pm, Oct 21)
Last: steagles

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(852 - 8:40pm, Oct 21)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(20 - 7:58pm, Oct 21)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(104 - 7:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(55 - 6:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2891 - 6:24pm, Oct 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(58 - 5:44pm, Oct 21)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(173 - 4:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: Squash

Page rendered in 0.9096 seconds
53 querie(s) executed