Official 2010-11 NFL Thread

[GoSox05]

Ryan Grant out for the year.

 

 

f***.

[Balta1701]

Kyle Sanchez?

Mark Orton?

Sanchez Neckbeard?

Do you really think that Sanchez is actually as bad at throwing down the field as Orton? Orton was weak down the field because he didn't have the arm for it, and especially because with the Bears he didn't have the receivers for it. Brandon Marshall helped mask some of that last year.

[GoSox05]

I think sanchez is worse than Orton. Sanchez had chances throw over the middle yesterday and went check down instead.

[Balta1701]

I think sanchez is worse than Orton. Sanchez had chances throw over the middle yesterday and went check down instead.

It's not that he can't make that throw though...I really think it's that the Jets didn't want him to try. He looked like a guy who was coached to spend 1 second looking downfield at 1 receiver, and if that receiver isn't open, check down. That's what you do if you think you'll have 2 1000 yard runners and the best rushing attack in the game in your backfield; they had the best rushing attack in the game there last year, but Baltimore shut that down, so all of the coaching to check down and avoid turnovers wound up being backwards.

[Balta1701]

The Jets have lost Kris Jenkins for the season with a torn ACL.

[ChWRoCk2]

Ryan Grant out for the year.

Knew it was worse than just a one week thing, the injury didn't look good. But this totally sucks, all we got is Jackson.

 

Fully expect them to attempt to sign Willie Parker or trade for a RB, if Jackson gets hurt Green Bay has no one. At least we have a good two weeks to find one before the Bears series, Bills should still be beatable without Grant.

[Balta1701]

Bills should still be beatable without Grant.

As a Bills fan...let me say...Yup.

[southsider2k5]

Something interesting I came accross for the stat heads of Soxtalk talk... Lovie Smith was right to go for it on the 4th down play from the 1 yard line...

 

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/09/lovies-blunders.html

 

I'm hoping not to turn this site into 4thDownAnalysis.com, but I did get several requests to look at another controversial 4th down decision. (And I'll always be happy to take requests.) Down 14-13 to DET, CHI faced a 4th and goal from the 1 with about 9 minutes left in the 4th quarter. A FG is nearly automatic, giveing CHI a 2-point lead and a 0.59 WP.

 

Conversion attempts from the 1 are successful about 68% of the time. A successful TD gives CHI a 6-point lead and a 0.79 WP. A failed attempt leaves DET at its own 1, but with a 1-point lead, worth 0.44 WP for CHI. On net, the conversion attempt is worth 0.68*0.79 + (1-0.68)*0.44 = 0.68 WP. Going for it was the right call by a large margin--0.68 to 0.59.

[Balta1701]

Something interesting I came accross for the stat heads of Soxtalk talk... Lovie Smith was right to go for it on the 4th down play from the 1 yard line...

 

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/09/lovies-blunders.html

Do the statistics change at all in cases where you've already been stopped for 3 consecutive plays?

[southsider2k5]

Do the statistics change at all in cases where you've already been stopped for 3 consecutive plays?

 

No idea honestly.

[Balta1701]

No idea honestly.

Exactly. Overall...I think you might be right that going for it might be the right move...but the Bears did everything possible to make sure that the odds were against them. They left Forte in rather than swapping out backs. No one went in motion. There was no trickery at all; there was every reason to think you just had to stuff a straight ahead run one more time. The only attempt at any trickery was on a poorly set up 2nd down pass. Forte, furthermore, is I believe noted as one of the worst short yardage backs in the league in other statistics; his running style lends to him not getting through piles well.

 

The percentages there are lying because the Bears did nothing to put them in their favor.

[knightni]

What about going in the shotgun and doing direct snap to the fullback?

 

Would that be legal?

 

 

[Balta1701]

What about going in the shotgun and doing direct snap to the fullback?

 

Would that be legal?

Yes. And that would have been an entirely reasonable thing to do...on one of the first 3 downs.

[southsider2k5]

Exactly. Overall...I think you might be right that going for it might be the right move...but the Bears did everything possible to make sure that the odds were against them. They left Forte in rather than swapping out backs. No one went in motion. There was no trickery at all; there was every reason to think you just had to stuff a straight ahead run one more time. The only attempt at any trickery was on a poorly set up 2nd down pass. Forte, furthermore, is I believe noted as one of the worst short yardage backs in the league in other statistics; his running style lends to him not getting through piles well.

 

The percentages there are lying because the Bears did nothing to put them in their favor.

 

Logic tells me that each circumstance is its own set of odds. Each instance is its own event. At least that is how it would be approached if you believe in advanced statistics.

[Steve9347]

Something interesting I came accross for the stat heads of Soxtalk talk... Lovie Smith was right to go for it on the 4th down play from the 1 yard line...

 

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/09/lovies-blunders.html

Field Goal = lead = right choice

[Balta1701]

Guess the Bob Sanders injury and the length of time he'll be out for!

[Kyyle23]

What about going in the shotgun and doing direct snap to the fullback?

 

Would that be legal?

 

considering there is no fullback on the roster, it would be legal but impossible.

[LittleHurt05]

Guess the Bob Sanders injury and the length of time he'll be out for!

 

In Peter King's mailbag column today, somebody suggested that the Colts should just not play Sanders during the regular season and save him for the playoffs since he gets hurt so much. As stupid of an idea as that is, maybe the guy had a point. He's already missed 49 games while playing 48, and that doesn't count the rest of the season. They always seem to make the playoffs without him anyway.

[nitetrain8601]

Sanders is way too overrated and too injury prone to be counted on. He's more injury prone than Tracy McGrady.

[Steve9347]

Sanders is way too overrated and too injury prone to be counted on. He's more injury prone than Tracy McGrady.

Not possible.

[nitetrain8601]

Do the statistics change at all in cases where you've already been stopped for 3 consecutive plays?

 

Well it obviously has to. Think about this. If you have 1st and goal at the 5 and fail, then fail on 2nd and 3rd, but you got up to the one yard line, what makes you think you would be anymore successful getting it in than the first three tries? Most people in that situation would go for it.

 

This is a large reason why I'm not a Bears fan, it's a combo of Cubs and Sox fans complaining in unison, regardless of what the decision is, they just want to see someone gone, whether for good or bad. Bears fans complain that Lovie is too conservative, but then he goes for it. Then he's playing it stupid. He made a good point as well yesterday. Defensively, people complained about the Bears never blitzing. Well the Lions were driving, and when Calvin made that catch, people complained about how could he have single coverage. Well maybe because he was blitzing on that play. Seriously, too many times people want to play both sides of the fence when it comes to Chicago teams in general, but Bears fans moreso since there's more of them.

[nitetrain8601]

Exactly. Overall...I think you might be right that going for it might be the right move...but the Bears did everything possible to make sure that the odds were against them. They left Forte in rather than swapping out backs. No one went in motion. There was no trickery at all; there was every reason to think you just had to stuff a straight ahead run one more time. The only attempt at any trickery was on a poorly set up 2nd down pass. Forte, furthermore, is I believe noted as one of the worst short yardage backs in the league in other statistics; his running style lends to him not getting through piles well.

 

The percentages there are lying because the Bears did nothing to put them in their favor.

 

What trickery could they have done on 4th down. When you go for it on 4th down, you go with your best engine. Forte was just that on Sunday. Would you have preferred a reverse? A QB sneak? A statue of liberty play? As they say on ESPN...CMONNNNNNNNNNNNN MANNNNNNNNNNNNN!

[nitetrain8601]

Not possible.

Oh it is.

[Balta1701]

I really hate the way people talk about how teams blitz/don't blitz. I never agree with everything he says but Easterbrook was right on today. The Bears have been one of, if not the, most heavy blitzing team the last few years. At least IMO...a big part of the reason everyone thinks that the Bears secondary stinks is that the Bears have been blitzing more and more and more...and as such left their Secondary without help more and more.

In the NFL opener, Minnesota surely was expecting to be blitzed -- on third downs, the Vikings kept a running back and a tight end in the backfield to protect Brett Favre. Instead the Saints didn't blitz, which, compared with expectations, was a smart defensive game plan. Then in the second half, with Minnesota no longer worried about extra rushers, the Saints did blitz a few times. Overall, New Orleans blitzed on 10 of 51 Minnesota offensive snaps, smack on the league average of 20 percent blitzing. Yet the next day, sports radio and TV commentators, including on ESPN, were asserting New Orleans won by "bringing the heat," blah blah, with lots of blitzes.

 

"Washington blitzed on every play of the Cowboys' final drive!" Cris Collinsworth of NBC proclaimed as the Sunday night game ended. The Skins did blitz a lot -- including blitzing on four of the 11 snaps of the Cowboys' final drive. If an announcer expects to see a blitz on every play, that's what he sees. On three occasions in the Ravens at Jets "Monday Night Football" contest, Jon Gruden or Ron Jaworski declared that the Jets were blitzing when they had rushed four players. "I never expected a blitz here; I give Baltimore a lot of credit for blitzing," Gruden said of the Jets' second-last snap. Baltimore showed blitz, then rushed four. Announcers see what they expect to see.

 

On the night, Jersey/B blitzed on 17 of Baltimore's 23 passing-situation downs, a very high percentage of extra rushers. The result? For the defense, one interception, one sack, three incompletions and an offensive holding; for the offense, nine first downs and two intermediate gains. Baltimore at least drew even on, and arguably won, the Jersey/B blitz downs. But the booth crew didn't stop praising the Jets' blitz -- contrary evidence was not what they expected, so they didn't see it.

 

Announcers and sports writers exaggerate the frequency or effectiveness of blitzing partly because they want plays to be exciting, and blitzes do produce exciting results, though often for the offense. The other factor is "observer's bias." Psychological studies find that we usually see what we expect to see, filtering out any contrary evidence. If high numbers of blitzes were a formula for consistent victory, everybody would be blitzing all the time. That's not what happens. Defensive coordinators know that blitzes often produce big plays for the offense. Sports writers and sports announcers seem to take note only when a blitz produces a sack or interception. When the blitz backfires, they filter that out.

 

Here's an example of the blitzing double-edged sword. Leading 7-3 late in the second quarter, the tastefully named Gregg Williams called a safety blitz, which produced a Favre interception. Still leading 7-3 on the next Minnesota possession, Williams called the same blitz, which Favre this time recognized. The result was a 33-yard completion to Visanthe Shiancoe, setting up the Vikings' sole touchdown.

[nitetrain8601]

I really hate the way people talk about how teams blitz/don't blitz. I never agree with everything he says but Easterbrook was right on today. The Bears have been one of, if not the, most heavy blitzing team the last few years. At least IMO...a big part of the reason everyone thinks that the Bears secondary stinks is that the Bears have been blitzing more and more and more...and as such left their Secondary without help more and more.

 

Good work Balta. Very nice read.