MRM33064
-
Posts
493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MRM33064
-
-
This is a weird one, because my initial reaction was that TO was the one who acted like a complete turd, but I also don't discount the fact that Sully certainly does enjoy being a big fish in a one newspaper town.
In an odd way, all this noise probably benefit both of them personally, but not the team. The difference is, it's not Sullivan's job to cheerlead or help the team - but that is part of TO's.
Personally, I think TO was the bigger knucklehead in that situation, but it's a close call with Sullivan. Maybe they deserve each other.
FWIW, Martz and Mariucci supported Owens on the NFL Network, though I suppose that's not entirely surprising - they're still more coaches than media members.
-
A 90%+ losing record against winning teams. An abysmal record in division games. A laundry list of horrible tactical decisions in key moments.
On top of it, when that camera pans to him on the sideline and we see that blank stare, it's foreshadows the future in about same way as a stray black cat running across the street in front of your car.
On a brighter note, after yesterday's punting decision - designed to lock in a respectable losing margin - I heard the Washigton Generals called Ralph, very interested.
-
Belichick went for 4th-and-1 at his own 24 in the third quarter. The drive ended with the TD that put them up 26-10 and basically killed the Falcons thought that they could win the game.
I don't think the BILLS were going to win even if they went for it on fourth and one but there was ZERO probability after that decision.
It seems like the Belichick (and staff) mindset is usually focused on making the decision that maximizes his chance to win now (at the time the decision is made), as opposed to making the decision that might give us a chance to win the game later.
The odd part is that Jauron sticks to his ways as though they've served him incredibly well in the past.
-
Living in South Florida, I'll say that the 4pm start time next week is a good thing for the Bills.
The heat and humidity is brutal for both teams, but it's worse if you're not used to it.
-
I'm not sure his appearance has as much influence as, say, his decisions. 4th-and-1, 10 points down with time running out ... and punting.
The message: "well, we tried, we're probably not going to win, so let's try to make sure we don't lose by too much."
We can only hope that doesn't affect the team in the same way that it affects the fans.
-
honestly, i wasnt at first. but the more i think about it i hope he says it like it is and calls out the coaching staff.
TO's post-game conference (or whatever we could call it) was a complete embarrassment. I think Jauron ought "call out" TO on that ... and I wouldn't have minded seeing Trent "call out" TO little after a very lame attempt at what would've been a very big play.
I agree that there's calling out to do (penalties, decision-making, etc.), but I don't think TO's credibility at this point is sufficient to be calling out anyone himself.
-
Just out of curiosity - did anyone spot Trent (or anyone else on the offense) arguing/fighting with the coaching staff to go for it there?
I'd like to think that there'd be a QB and an entire offensive line insisting on going for it there, fighting to stay alive by gaining 1 yard with time running low.
It's the job of the coach to rationally make the final decision, but it'd be nice to see some competitive spirit for that coach to have to manage. I hope that this overriding sense of risk aversion doesn't seep too far into these young OL of ours.
-
We just can't afford to keep treating Evans and TO essentially as decoys to draw coverage away from [insert Name Here: Derek Fine, Josh Reed.] 1-2 deep balls a game to our WRs just won't do it; we need to integrate these guys into the offense.
I suppose we just don't know if the plays aren't being called in to go to Evans/TO, or if the plays are getting sent in and Trent just won't (purposefully) throw into any kind of coverage. I'm guessing it's more the latter.
-
It is difficult to think how Jauron (or whoever is making the decision) looks at that situation and thinks that he is maximizing our chance to win the game by punting.
By punting, we voluntarily concede two of the metrics we need the most - time and possession - absent a fumble on the punt reception.
Even had we failed on 4th-and-1 (an unlikely event if you buy into historical data), the defense would've still had the opportunity to hold NO to a FG, keeping it a 2 score game.
-
Last week's 4th-and-1 thread was pretty active - this one has just a wee bit potential as well.
The situation: 4-and-1, down by 10, less than 8 mins to go, ball on own 28.
Thoughts?
-
IMO, worst decision Jauron has ever made.
Wow, that's a high standard. There's so .... so MANY ....
-
Out of curiosity - does anyone know how many times Trent has thrown to Evans and Owens ... I'm remembering only 1 to each but might've missed ........
-
It's a fummmmmmmmble!!!!!!
So much for the great Drew Brees in the 1st half.... LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
I'm with you .. but let's not get too crazy, he's 8/11 for 103 yards and we're barely in the 2nd quarter ....
-
Exciting play ... and I like the attempt at the pooch too, even though we didn't get it ....
-
... Mike Tirico stays at least 100 miles away from The Ralph.
-
Just about to post this. Yeah I've seen all three games thus far. And though it's early it's not just Sanchez that is for real. It seems like the Jets are the real deal...up 14-0.
Agreed, the Jets look tough. As to Sanchez, yes it's very early ... but that run for the TD was quite a display as well. When that play broke down, his instinct was to drive that ball into the endzone himself.
-
Any word on whether this is a sign that McKelvin's injury is going to be a bigger factor today than we hoped?
-
FWIW, WGR550 evidently just won “Sports Station of the Year” at the 2009 National Association of Broadcasters' Marconi Radio Awards.
I'm not cheerleader, but I do enjoy WGR550, especially living out-of-town. They stack up pretty well against some of the South Florida stuff.
-
OK no offense here, good effort but these are pretty painful to watch.
It does have a certain Wayne's World-ish quality about it. Meh - it's always easier to criticize than to do. If you're having fun keep it up.
-
do believe that this sort of analysis can be used to create an excellent model for 4th down decisions, and that almost no matter what, it will show that NFL coaches punt/kick FGs way too much ..... Finally, MRM, expected points to win% is non-linear not because it is discrete, but because some pt leads are virtually equivalent, especially when one of the teams is unlike to score for the other team to win (as was the case on this play). For example, there was no difference to us being up by 1 pt or 2 pts, 5 pts or 6 pts, yet our win% would shoot through the roof if we were up by 9. This is even more difficult to correct for as the average pts idea breaks down. Early in the game, maximizing expected points will translate almost perfectly to winning%, but not near the end.
Very sharp critique, and FWIW, I agree with the vast majority of it - especially the big picture, which is well summarized in the first sentence and is probably the most important takeaway. If/when a similar situation presents, I really hope you take the time to post an analysis. I think this can be a tool to help improve a team's decision-making and, ultimately, its chances to win.
(BTW, on the specific situation, I do think it'd be entirely reasonble to interpret the win% differential just as might be implied by what Waterloo said; that is, even if we could all stipulate to the 96% (for sake of argument) the win % may be sufficiently high enough at that point either way so as make the decision inconsequential, especially when factoring in error.)
-
Please post the stats that prove the 96% number. We do not have to go into it dropping from 98% to 96%. Just the stats that proves that teams up by 13 and less than 2 minutes remaining win 96% of the time ..... This should prove to be fairly simple for you. It is a complete softball.
I really started this analysis as a good faith attempt to analyze the decision using some objective metrics, and somehow it all fell apart. Some folks got it.
In any case, as I pointed out, the 96% figure didn't come from my data, so people are free to assume it's entirely made up and/or falsified. (Actually, I don't think anything about this is particularly easy or "softball.") In the very low probability (pun intended) that the question was a sincere attempt to learn a little more, I'd point you to this link, which I think is helpful. It's a good summary (or what I think is a good summary of the concepts. http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/08/win-probability.htm.
Also, FWIW, I provided a few other references on this as well, if you can request from me via private message if you're interested. There are also several other forums that spend time analyzing these type questions, though they're not Bills-focused, obviously.
That's it on this ... until the next 4-and-? ...
-
To further illustrate my point, let us observe the example of poker:
It is a raging argument whether it is more effective in poker to "play the odds" or "play by feel." The truly successful poker players all have one thing in common: they incorporate both. It is absolutely necessary to know the odds of a given scenario (in the case of hand odds we don't have to even worry about unaccounted for dynamics, since we are talking about a simple system of cards being dealt from a limited deck), but ANY good poker player knows that you cannot merely bet the odds. The reason for this is because anyone ELSE who is familiar with how odds work know how to easily manipulate your odds.
In a poker game, there are 2 important types of odds. You have the pot odds, and you have the hand odds. The pot odds represent the percentage of all times at which you must win the given pot in order to break even on those pots. The hand odds represent your chance of drawing the winning hand.
The argument exists in the idea that as long as you only bet when your hand odds are better than the pot odds, the laws of probability dictate that you should always come out ahead. This seems logically sound at first glance. But there are several unaccounted dynamics that debunk this belief. If the opposing player knows you are betting odds, he can bluff you. Typically betting a pot sized bet completely throws of the logic of the system, as the guy believes he is betting much worse pot odds than he actually is. Therefore, the logic dictates that he must fold. Most good players cannot be easily bluffed this way consistently, and therefore we know that the ones who truly understand how the odds work in poker realize that there is a time to throw the odds out the window and bet your gut.
The point being that any idiot can manipulate statistics to make them tell a story according to his design, and thus they have little actual validity in any argument regarding situational football theory.
Again, the point is that basic concept of "pot odds" may not be the sole factor, but is certainly relevant in the process - or ought to be - and subject to being quantified.
As to whether these concepts have little actual validity in "situational football theory", we disagree. I (obviously) think they are highly relevant.
-
and i'm supposed to write here that everyone is entitled to their taste in music, though i'm not sure how that applies to dave matthews band fans or michael bubble for that matter.
Completely off-topic, but that was quality.
-
You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Football is a 4 act play that's been running for a hundred years. It is populated by humans, with human decisions good or bad. There is nothing new to be said, or discovered. Untold thousands before you have applied every and all statistical treatments.
It is a game played by humans of varying talent ,some that occasionally do things that their history says they shouldn't be able do, with varying health, with plays directed by humans of varying predictive skill, in varying weather, on varying surfaces, with varying levels of noise and distraction.
Add in an oviod ball with unpredictable, bounces, caroms, etc.
You can lose a game with the toss of a coin in OT, or a bonehead call on a game-starting toss by picking possession over the prevailing winds. You can lose a game because a jerk on the sidelines mouths off.
It's the general chaos of the sport that makes the game worth watching. Stats tell things, but plain and simple chance often finds its' way.
Completely rational, totally correct .... with one small caveat. This is more about a methodology to guide decisions with the understanding that outcomes are indeed variable, as you state.
When folks sit down at a blackjack (or poker) table, or when an insurance actuary needs to underwrite risk, something needs to guide their decisions. The blackjack player needs to decide whether to hit that 14 to the dealer's face card. The actuary needs to quantify the value of what can sometimes appear to be a myriad of possible outcomes. Some blackjack players do it by "feel" (the "football sense" crowd), others - like the actuaries - use tools such as studying the results of millions of similar or analogous situations to guide their actions.
Either methodology can ultimately win or lose (outcomes vary), but we're trying to give some objectivity to whether one has a better chance of winning or losing, at the time the decision is made.
We'll close this out - but maybe we'll get another chance to debate a similar decision soon ... and hopefully it will involve a situation where we already have another >90% chance of winning.
KC, TB & the Bills fire O.C.'s in pre-season
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
The timing was definitely not great, and we don't know how things would've played out had the changes not been made, but in these cases I think the records had a decent chance to have been the same (or close to the same) no matter what they did. 3 very mediocre teams, talent-wise, with a pretty tough stretch of opening games, generally. We'll see how it plays out over the season, but on balance it seems like with these teams there wasn't a heck of a lot of downside risk.
KC: Ravens, Raiders, Eagles
Bucs: Cowboys, Bills, Giants
Bills: Patriots, Bucs, Saints