hondo in seattle Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The problem is turnovers. Turnovers can lead to a lot of extra scores for, or against, you and nobody can reliably predict them. Teams that lead the league in takeaways one year fall to the middle of the pack the next. A stable QB helps mitigate them on offense but overall they still fluctuate (unless you are the Patriots...) The other problem is sample size. In MLB the numbers will more closely reflect actual team's skill levels whereas in the NFL 16 games isn't much to go on. It's why you see sizable fluctuations year to year (though, again, solid QB play helps mitigate this.) So as much as someone might like to predict that numbers will regress towards the mean - and over a long period of time they would - it's tough to make those types of predictions with such a short season. Add the wild variable of turnovers and you have a sport that is very tough to predict with statistics. Turnovers do seem to be - to some extent - a random event. So do injuries which would also be very tough to predict. An injury to a QB could be devastating. Other injuries can also effect W/L records and it's hard for any model to account for injuries in a short season. I think we're a long way off from a statistical model predicting W-L significantly more accurately than an informed fan. Too many hard-to-account-for variables and random events.
eball Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Turnovers do seem to be - to some extent - a random event. So do injuries which would also be very tough to predict. An injury to a QB could be devastating. Other injuries can also effect W/L records and it's hard for any model to account for injuries in a short season. I think we're a long way off from a statistical model predicting W-L significantly more accurately than an informed fan. Too many hard-to-account-for variables and random events. Turnovers aren't random. If you deflate the ball you'll fumble a lot less.
Chuck Wagon Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 He's hated on every move we've made, so he's just doubling down. I'm trying to stay level in regards to expectations, but I think it's ridiculous to see us being worse than the Giants / Buccaneers / Bears just to name 3 teams that should be in the bottom 8. "In 3 first round picks the Bills have little to show other than Sammy Watkins" - this leaves out the fact they moved down to get EJ, picking up an extra 2nd used on Alonso and ultimately used on Shady. I typically try not to buy into the "this writer hates the team" frenzy, but from everything Barnwell has written about the Bills it's clear the dude has an axe to grind. Apparently he feels our best course of action would be making no moves whatsoever and stripping the roster to the bones until we luck into a QB, nevermind that teams like the Seahawks, Ravens and Steelers have built up strong rosters then plugged in relatively overlooked QBs and won. In 2014 he was right on 4 of the 8 of the "cellar dwellars" / 3 of the 8 "Falling stars" and predicted the Redskins to win their division.
Acantha Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Same author with his week 1 write-up. A much better read IMO, and while many will say that's because he talks nicer about the Bills, that's not really true. He's not nearly as high on TT as many in the media have been so far, and I appreciate his reasons for that and mostly agree with him. All in all, I think it's just the difference between writing an opinion piece with game tape in front of him vs throwing crap against a wall based on rosters. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/time-after-time-a-look-at-week-1-in-the-nfl/ (scroll down to second game write-up)
GunnerBill Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Same author with his week 1 write-up. A much better read IMO, and while many will say that's because he talks nicer about the Bills, that's not really true. He's not nearly as high on TT as many in the media have been so far, and I appreciate his reasons for that and mostly agree with him. All in all, I think it's just the difference between writing an opinion piece with game tape in front of him vs throwing crap against a wall based on rosters. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/time-after-time-a-look-at-week-1-in-the-nfl/ (scroll down to second game write-up) I looked up the word "begrudging" in the dictionary and there was a link to this article.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 This was pretty much garbage IMO. He is like the people here more concerned about being right. He raises questions about the Bills ability to continue to bring pressure (like yesterday was an anomaly). Someone should remind him that in 2013 the Bills had 57 sacks in a blitz heavy scheme (2nd in the league) and in 2014 54 sacks in a conservative scheme (1st in the league). Raising questions about the Bills ability to bring pressure is the equivalent of having concerns about the Packers QB position.
GunnerBill Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Thi Raising questions about the Bills ability to bring pressure is the equivalent of having concerns about the Packers QB position. - Post of the day.
Chuck Wagon Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I looked up the word "begrudging" in the dictionary and there was a link to this article. No kidding. Basically "I admit that I might be wrong about Taylor, but here's an extensive list of things he didn't do perfectly." How is Taylor throwing quick easy passes any different than what Brady / Peyton do most weeks? When is the last time either of those guys threw a 50 yard TD like Taylor did to Harvin? Ordinarily I'm not a "so and so in the media hates my team" type but it's clear judging by his body of work Barnwell has something against the Bills.
Acantha Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 This was pretty much garbage IMO. He is like the people here more concerned about being right. He raises questions about the Bills ability to continue to bring pressure (like yesterday was an anomaly). Someone should remind him that in 2013 the Bills had 57 sacks in a blitz heavy scheme (2nd in the league) and in 2014 54 sacks in a conservative scheme (1st in the league). Raising questions about the Bills ability to bring pressure is the equivalent of having concerns about the Packers QB position. Maybe I'm missing it....where did he question their ability to bring pressure? Are you referring to the end where he said game tape will keep teams from being quite so blindsided? Hard to argue that, and it means nothing in terms of how much pressure the Bills will get. Unless I missed another comment elsewhere, I didn't read that nearly the same as you did. No kidding. Basically "I admit that I might be wrong about Taylor, but here's an extensive list of things he didn't do perfectly." How is Taylor throwing quick easy passes any different than what Brady / Peyton do most weeks? When is the last time either of those guys threw a 50 yard TD like Taylor did to Harvin? Ordinarily I'm not a "so and so in the media hates my team" type but it's clear judging by his body of work Barnwell has something against the Bills. I am very encouraged by what I saw with TT, but I didn't like everything I saw. Just like every QB in the league, I can't jump on a guy's bandwagon until around half a season. I have great hope for him, but he made some throws yesterday that could have really hurt. What I want to see from Tryod is how he grows from game to game, and there's just no way to get around but to wait and see. Until then, I'll take notice of his good points and bad points. As for the article, I do think he went a little far to be critical of the offense, similar to what he did in his first article, but at least he something to back his opinion up.
DC Greg Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Do Grantland writers get paid or is it all volunteer?
Kirby Jackson Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Maybe I'm missing it....where did he question their ability to bring pressure? Are you referring to the end where he said game tape will keep teams from being quite so blindsided? Hard to argue that, and it means nothing in terms of how much pressure the Bills will get. Unless I missed another comment elsewhere, I didn't read that nearly the same as you did. I am very encouraged by what I saw with TT, but I didn't like everything I saw. Just like every QB in the league, I can't jump on a guy's bandwagon until around half a season. I have great hope for him, but he made some throws yesterday that could have really hurt. What I want to see from Tryod is how he grows from game to game, and there's just no way to get around but to wait and see. Until then, I'll take notice of his good points and bad points. As for the article, I do think he went a little far to be critical of the offense, similar to what he did in his first article, but at least he something to back his opinion up. This followed by a reference to a game 12 years ago: The same might be true for the Bills as a whole. This was a day when a lot went right for them, when the opposing team wasn’t able to break free from their pressure or capitalize with big gains on the few chances they had. Teams will get more tape on how Ryan implemented pressure and on Taylor and won’t be quite as blindsided as the Colts were this week. Opposing teams haven't broken free from the Bills pressure at all over the last 2 years. Why are we chalking that up to "blindsiding" the Colts and not chalking it up to an elite pass rush?
PromoTheRobot Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Do Grantland writers get paid or is it all volunteer?It's a vanity press.
Acantha Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 This followed by a reference to a game 12 years ago: The same might be true for the Bills as a whole. This was a day when a lot went right for them, when the opposing team wasn’t able to break free from their pressure or capitalize with big gains on the few chances they had. Teams will get more tape on how Ryan implemented pressure and on Taylor and won’t be quite as blindsided as the Colts were this week. Opposing teams haven't broken free from the Bills pressure at all over the last 2 years. Why are we chalking that up to "blindsiding" the Colts and not chalking it up to an elite pass rush? First, I'm sorry to say as a long time Bills fan who has been punched in the nuts repeated for basically my whole life, those false starts are the first thing I think of as well. I'm so tentatively excited it almost hurts. I've read a couple of articles now that have mentioned how Rex was disguising blitzes/sending people from all over the place/delaying, etc.... It wasn't just pressure, it was the scheme. That is something you study on tape to try and prevent. He doesn't say the Bills won't be able to continue to get pressure, but I disagree that the scheme used yesterday had nothing to do with winning that game.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) First, I'm sorry to say as a long time Bills fan who has been punched in the nuts repeated for basically my whole life, those false starts are the first thing I think of as well. I'm so tentatively excited it almost hurts. I've read a couple of articles now that have mentioned how Rex was disguising blitzes/sending people from all over the place/delaying, etc.... It wasn't just pressure, it was the scheme. That is something you study on tape to try and prevent. He doesn't say the Bills won't be able to continue to get pressure, but I disagree that the scheme used yesterday had nothing to do with winning that game. I'm not saying that it did not play a role. I am reading that differently than you I guess. I am reading it as "once teams have more tape on the Bills they will have better success against the pass rush." I do not believe that to be the case at all. The Bills pass rush is elite and has been for quite some time. We should not expect teams to have more success against it moving forward. They have been able to rush the passer with 4 as well as with 8. Edited September 14, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
Acantha Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) I'm not saying that it did not play a role. I am reading that differently than you I guess. I am reading it as "once teams have more tape on the Bills they will have better success against that pass rush." I do not believe that to be the case at all. The Bills pass rush is elite and has been for quite some time. We should not expect teams to have more success against it moving forward. I'll admit I may be giving the author a benefit of doubt he doesn't deserve, but factoring in the stat he brought up about how Luck was very good vs the blitz last year, I think the type of blitzing that was employed yesterday was especially important. Throwing Luck off guard with disguised blitzes was necessary to the results. For most of the QB's in the league, the Bills can pretty much bully their way to pressure, but it doesn't hurt our future opponents to have those disguised blitzes on tape, and slightly unfortunate that Rex had to employ them in the first game of the season. I say "slightly" because like you I think the Bills can get pressure on almost every team in the league pretty much any way they want. Edited September 14, 2015 by Acantha
YattaOkasan Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) First, I'm sorry to say as a long time Bills fan who has been punched in the nuts repeated for basically my whole life, those false starts are the first thing I think of as well. I'm so tentatively excited it almost hurts. I've read a couple of articles now that have mentioned how Rex was disguising blitzes/sending people from all over the place/delaying, etc.... It wasn't just pressure, it was the scheme. That is something you study on tape to try and prevent. He doesn't say the Bills won't be able to continue to get pressure, but I disagree that the scheme used yesterday had nothing to do with winning that game. There is tape on Rex and there is tape of our players in a similar defense. I don't think Rex is pulling too many new things out of the hat. I agree that our pass rush will remain good this year, and I don't think it blind sided Luck at all. He only took 2 sacks for -3 yards. If anything I think he was as prepared as he could be. Edited September 14, 2015 by YattaOkasan
Kirby Jackson Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I'll admit I may be giving the author a benefit of doubt he doesn't deserve, but factoring in the stat he brought up about how Luck was very good vs the blitz last year, I think the type of blitzing that was employed yesterday was especially important. Throwing Luck off guard with disguised blitzes was necessary to the results. For most of the QB's in the league, the Bills can pretty much bully their way to pressure, but it doesn't hurt our future opponents to have those disguised blitzes on tape, and slightly unfortunate that Rex had to employ them in the first game of the season. I say "slightly" because like you I think the Bills can get pressure on almost every team in the league pretty much any way they want. I agree with all of that. That was pretty much what I am saying as well. Luck had success against blitzes last year but the Falcons blitzing and the Bills blitzing are two different things. It is one thing to have success against the blitz and a completely different thing to have success against the league's best pass rush.
jester43 Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 oh my god some of you guys are sensitive.
Dibs Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 oh my god some of you guys are sensitive. Who are you calling sensitive? I'm not sensitive! Why would you say such a thing?
Juice_32 Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 "They blitzed so many times and with so many people that I became convinced Ryan was filming an epic movie and sending thousands of CGI’d extras after Luck on every passing down." I'm sorry, but this had me laughing.
Recommended Posts