NFL Offseason Thread

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:59 pm

Well of course, keeping the opposition from scoring points isn't like the purpose of the defense anyway.

Post by **brian** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:02 pm

Rush2112 wrote:Well of course, keeping the opposition from scoring points isn't like the purpose of the defense anyway.

Do you get the mathematic rationale why scoring defense is not the best metric for judging a defense or are you trolling for trolling's sake?

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:11 pm

I get it. It's just sometimes I think that statistics are created just so people have statistics to talk about.

Points against typically signifies success, i.e 8 of the top 10 teams in points allowed made the playoffs and all 10 were in the running in week 17.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:22 pm

Going from the Bills to the Browns seems like such a lateral move.

Ba-dum-cha! Try the veal!

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:24 pm

Rush2112 wrote:I get it. It's just sometimes I think that statistics are created just so people have statistics to talk about.

Points against typically signifies success, i.e 8 of the top 10 teams in points allowed made the playoffs and all 10 were in the running in week 17.

And countering an argument is not really trolling.

I like stats, but find the current fetish for creating new statistical analyses to be a bit comical. I don't need a complicated mathematical formula to tell me what I can see with my own eyes.

So when I read that the Bills had the 4th bet defence in the NFL this year, I have to wonder about the methodology that would produce such a laughable ranking. I have no doubt that the guys who created DVOA are sincere in their belief that they have created a better way to rank defences than the methods used in the past - but I'll stick with yardage, points and turnovers.

Post by **brian** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:26 pm

I'm not suggesting scoring defense is completely meaningless, but it's nowhere near as accurate as DVOA. For starters, scoring defense also includes points the offense is responsible for (directly and indirectly), as well as special teams.

Umpteen years Football Outsiders has been doing DVOA now and I still fail to understand how the advantages of context-dependent stats vex so many people.

Post by **brian** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:30 pm

Pruitt wrote:...but I'll stick with yardage, points and turnovers.

Two of those three are HORRIBLE ways to judge a defense. Yards are basically meaningless since you can't win a football game by gaining 500 yards and scoring 0 points, which is of course theoretically possible. Study after study after study after study has shown that turnovers are 90 percent random chance and there is no correlation from game to game or year to year as far as forcing turnovers.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:02 pm

Rush2112 wrote:I get it. It's just sometimes I think that statistics are created just so people have statistics to talk about.

Points against typically signifies success, i.e 8 of the top 10 teams in points allowed made the playoffs and all 10 were in the running in week 17.

No way, the teams that give up the least amount of points were good?

When Jeff Tuel (?!?!?!) throws a 100+ yard pick-6, the Bills give up points. When EJ Manuel gives the Steelers good field position for the 9th game in a game, points will be scored.

My favorite stats are per-play stats (yards allowed and points allowed), even though none of those are perfect. The Steelers of 2012 were the number 1 defense, I believe, in yards allowed. But they were middle of the pack in yards/points per play allowed, because they led the NFL in time of possession. They also barely forced any turnovers. And that's how the #1 defense went 8-8 and really wasn't the #1 defense. (or top 5 or whatever they were).

Football is not simple and simple stats don't do it justice, which is why DVOA and stuff like that exists. Yards allowed is like the pitcher wins of defensive stats.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:26 am

brian wrote:I'm not suggesting scoring defense is completely meaningless, but it's nowhere near as accurate as DVOA. For starters, scoring defense also includes points the offense is responsible for (directly and indirectly), as well as special teams.

Umpteen years Football Outsiders has been doing DVOA now and I still fail to understand how the advantages of context-dependent stats vex so many people.

This is a discussion that can go on and on with neither side convincing the other...

But it seems to me that some of these advanced stats exist just for the sake of existing. How is DVOA more accurate if it ranks a unit (the Bills) that was overrun in many games, that failed to hold leads as being better than a defence that carried a team to the brink of the Super Bowl?

Post by **brian** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:27 pm

Pruitt wrote:
brian wrote:I'm not suggesting scoring defense is completely meaningless, but it's nowhere near as accurate as DVOA. For starters, scoring defense also includes points the offense is responsible for (directly and indirectly), as well as special teams.

Umpteen years Football Outsiders has been doing DVOA now and I still fail to understand how the advantages of context-dependent stats vex so many people.
This is a discussion that can go on and on with neither side convincing the other...

But it seems to me that some of these advanced stats exist just for the sake of existing. How is DVOA more accurate if it ranks a unit (the Bills) that was overrun in many games, that failed to hold leads as being better than a defence that carried a team to the brink of the Super Bowl?

Because the Bills can (and did) have a horrible offense and special teams that continually put the defense in a bad spot. I'm not going to pretend I saw more than a couple Bills games, but I trust DVOA a lot more than yards or points allowed. The good news for you is that DVOA is usually fairly predictive for units that grade solidly but for teams that had a bad year record-wise. In other words, if the Bills can fix some of their issues on offense, they might be primed for a really good season next year (assuming of course they keep most of the pieces in place on their D).

(Perfect example is Seattle was 11-5 last year, but led the league in overall DVOA. Essentially they were the best team in the NFL over the entire season. So it wasn't a stretch to assume they could lead the league in actual wins this year.)

Post by **brian** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:29 pm

...But the Bills hired Jim Schwartz as their DC, so now they're fucked. <sad trombone>

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:00 pm

The hard hitting questions

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:57 pm

Whoa! Who is Cari and how do i get my balls in her court?

Rams Fanny · Post by **Rams Fanny** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:33 pm

Rams fire overwhelmed def coor. Tim Walton and (re)hire Greg "Bounty" Williams. This being prop season, some book ought to put up a prop over which defense has more unsportsmanlike penalties, Rams or Bills.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:47 pm

Yeah he's retired but holy shit Alan Faneca

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:48 am

Brontoburglar wrote:Yeah he's retired but holy shit Alan Faneca

From that picture, it's hard to believe he was a lineman!

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:57 am

Dianabol's a helluva drug

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:09 pm

I've read some horror stories about how much offensive linemen struggle with their weight post-retirement. So it's nice to see someone be able to get back to a normal weight (though honestly he almost looks TOO skinny).

Post by **Sabo** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:01 pm

CBS wins broadcasting rights for Thursday night games.

If this means Mike Mayock never calls another NFL game, then I'm completely on board with this.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:08 pm

Sabo wrote:CBS wins broadcasting rights for Thursday night games.

If this means Mike Mayock never calls another NFL game, then I'm completely on board with this.

It's only the first half of the season though, so I'm sure he'll be back for the second half.

I wish they'd bring back the team that they had doing the late night opener a few years ago. I remember Dick Vermeil was part of the team, but don't recall the play by play but they were excellent.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:10 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
Sabo wrote:CBS wins broadcasting rights for Thursday night games.

If this means Mike Mayock never calls another NFL game, then I'm completely on board with this.
It's only the first half of the season though, so I'm sure he'll be back for the second half.

I wish they'd bring back the team that they had doing the late night opener a few years ago. I remember Dick Vermeil was part of the team, but don't recall the play by play but they were excellent.

Nope. Simms and Nantz to call NFL network games as well.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:14 pm

Fast forward to 3:17. This was missed over the weekend because of the super bowl.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:58 pm

AB_skin_test wrote: Nope. Simms and Nantz to call NFL network games as well.

Fantastic. Hopefully it also means that they'll do fewer Patriot games.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:49 am

sancarlos wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:Yeah he's retired but holy shit Alan Faneca
From that picture, it's hard to believe he was a lineman!

He looks like he's a rail, but apparently he weighs 210. Which isn't small, but is 110 pounds under his playing weight. But being 6'5" makes that 210 look pretty skinny.

Post by **Sabo** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:38 am

What the fuck, Browns.

Joe Banner and Mike Lombardi are leaving the Browns; Ray Farmer promoted to GM.

Post by **brian** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:49 am

What a shitshow.

Post by **brian** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:32 pm

Mike Tanier lays some wood on the Browns.

One of my favorite Twitter comments from a Lions fans:

The Lions even suck at trying to be the most dysfunctional franchise in the NFL.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:30 pm

I, for one, am happy that Mike Lombardi will be back on the Bill Simmons podcast.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:05 pm

Johnnie wrote:I, for one, am happy that Mike Lombardi will be back on the Bill Simmons podcast.

I think his other friend who worked for the Browns also got the hammer dropped on him, also.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:08 pm

Did you ever play the Mike Lombardi drinking game where you do a shot every time he makes an analogy to another sport?

Post by **Sabo** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:10 am

Peter King writes about the firing of Banner and Lombardi.

If all of this is true, then this front office purge is good news for the Browns.

If nothing else, my respect for Ken Whisenhut increased about 1 million percent.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:21 am

brian wrote:Mike Tanier lays some wood on the Browns.

One of my favorite Twitter comments from a Lions fans:

The Lions even suck at trying to be the most dysfunctional franchise in the NFL.

From Tanier;

Browns fans deserve better than an Onion headline of a football team. The saddest reality of Poe's Law and Haslam's Lemma is that stupidity can be funny and a satire of stupidity can be funnier, but extreme stupidity, no matter how hard you try to mock it, is no laughing matter.

As a long time Browns fan, I find this team to be unworthy of any sort of affection. While some say that Haslam merely dumped Banner because he was there (sent by the league?) to show him how to run an NFL team, this makes little sense. Has anyone else heard of the NFL sending in what amounts to a consultant in order to help a new owner figure things out?

From Peter King:

In Haslam’s 17-month tenure, the team has employed 56 coaches.

To call the Browns a circus would be an insult to circuses.

And you've got to know that a job in Cleveland - for either coach or player - is probably less desirable than a stint anywhere else in the league. A team that is in the midst of an epic run of dismal football (6 straight years with 11 or more losses. Not just 10 losses, 11 - love that stat). The New Browns cumulative record is 72-164.
The weather sucks. The ownership sucks.

It's a tribute to the brighter side of human nature that Browns fans haven't pulled a Jonestown during yet another dismal 24-6 loss.

On the other hand - who would spend money to watch this team?

Perhaps, Haslam's preferred management style is to sow chaos and hope that something good will come of it. But to get all biblical here - they that sow the wind shall often reap the whirlwind.

Translation: this team is fucked.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:49 am

I think this team's core is promising and I would love to coach it. I might take their roster/cap/draft situation over Tennessee and possibly even Detroit, I'd draft Johnny Cleveland and I would ball out for years and then I'd move into my $400,000 mansion and hold crazy orgies with stereotypically ugly but willing Cleveland femmes.

howard · Post by **howard** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:36 am

Can I be your LB coach?

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 pm

Gunpowder wrote:I think this team's core is promising and I would love to coach it. I might take their roster/cap/draft situation over Tennessee and possibly even Detroit, I'd draft Johnny Cleveland and I would ball out for years and then I'd move into my $400,000 mansion and hold crazy orgies with stereotypically ugly but willing Cleveland femmes.

I like the cut of your jib, and I'll subscribe to the newsletter.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:56 am

Clowney ran a 4.47 and 4.48. Faster than all but about 5 Running backs.

Tom 1860 · Post by **Tom 1860** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:27 pm

AB_skin_test wrote:Clowney ran a 4.47 and 4.48. Faster than all but about 5 Running backs.

You should check out what Aaron Donald continues to do...

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:36 pm

AB_skin_test wrote:Clowney ran a 4.47 and 4.48. Faster than all but about 5 Running backs.

Though his official time was 4.53. Link

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:46 pm

I hate the "what does the combine have to do with real football?" comments, like people are making some great previously unrealized revelation. Yeah, I get it, there's no broad jumps during a game.

Post by **brian** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:48 pm

Gunpowder wrote:I hate the "what does the combine have to do with real football?" comments, like people are making some great previously unrealized revelation. Yeah, I get it, there's no broad jumps during a game.

It's more frustrating when you add in the "what does someone's 40 time have to do with their football ability"? which is ridiculous on several different levels. It's almost as if the person commenting hasn't actually seen a football game and how important speed is. (It's obviously not the be-all end-all, but it's not exactly as if it's not important either.)