Jump to content

Gee, it's almost as if Belicheat is speaking to forum members ever


Ronin

Recommended Posts

Bellyache is absolutely right. Some of us have been saying that for years and it's the main reason why I take issue with much of what profootballfocus and others like them that attempt to qualify players when they lack much of the context required to do so accurately.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should know he has the tapes on everyone :nana: . I bet he has been watching our preseason this year. They are going to try to run often and early IMO but I am no expert :bag:.

 

I hope he's been watching our tapes this preseason. Because our offense has been a heavy dose of vanilla. He'd be better served by reviewing the videos taken by his minions attending Bills camp.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get off my lawn! :lol:

 

Look, Belechick is right based on knowing who made a mistake, sorta. I do not believe this is an "all or nothing" situation. You don't necessarily have to know every detail of a play to make an informed assessment about whether a WR beat a CB in man coverage. He is definitely wrong in terms of knowing who won vs who lost in obvious 1v1 situations.

 

Example: Did Matt Kalil make a mistake against Jerry Hughes? No. That was his guy, he is a good LT, and he got soundly beaten. The play was not schemed for him to have help. The help was moved to the other side of the line. I'm assuming you've all seen this enough times. We can get into "yeah but, what if the QB/C had the wrong protection called"...all day. :rolleyes: Excuses are like....

 

Another thing he is wrong about: Scouts don't know the play either. Sure, they can call and ask about a guy or a play, but, if we hold them to the standard Belechick uses: "know the playbook well enough to know everybody's assignment"? Pro scouts know nothing at all, and college scouts know very little. Does this mean every scout in the country is useless? Well, if you've been paying attention to Belechick's recent drafts, you'd get the impression that he believes precisely that. :lol:

 

And finally, the usefulness of things like PFF, or ANY analytical approach(that is properly executed, there are many examples of when it isn't), improve as you gain scale: ALWAYS. Sure, it may look as if a guy missed his assignment, or got whipped. When in fact, per the play call/design, he didn't do anything wrong. The question is: how often does that happen? vs. how often do you get it right?. If you evaluated every single play a player is in for, and make that mistake 1 out of 50 times? Belechick's point is completely irrelevant. If you do it 1 out of 10 times? Belechick's point still succumbs to the overwhelming weight of the data as it piles up, it just takes longer. Unless we believe that there is going to be inconsistent, and unpredictable error in evaluating plays, that cannot be accounted for, regression towards reality is the result.

 

Right now Cordy Glenn's PFF #1 rating doesn't mean that much. It beats the hell out of being at the bottom though. ;)

 

Let's see where he is after 8 games, and whether that matches our personal observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...