Why protect Yates?

[klos63]

Analytics say that coaches are WAY conservative on 4th down. Guys like Belicheck and Urban Meyer may be breaking that down some. It's easier to do what's always been done and fail than go against the grain and fail. Even if going against the grain is the better percentage play. You face less criticism if you make the universally accepted decision is mathematically the wrong one. That's the old Mike Schopp debate (although he applies ridiculous hyperbole to it).

 

The 2 point conversion is heading that way too. If you convert them over 50% of the time why kick extra points? I know that's an extreme example but hear me out. If you score 50 TDs on the year and make 50% of you 2's that's 50 points. If you make 92% of your extra points that's 46 points. That's a dumbed down version and the margin isn't huge but we are starting to see teams with Urban Meyer, Chip Kelly, and Mike Tomlin challenging that some.

Re: 2 point conversion - you need to look at game situations before you can make an analysis like yours. Simple example is you score 3 TD's a game, if you have a 50% success rate, in one game it works out, next game it doesn't. This isn't a decision that can be based on season long stats, it's the game situation that effects most of the decision on whether to go for 2 or not.

 

Going for 4th and short is also a decision with a huge impact on a game and not to be taken lightly. Obviously, field position plays a big role in the decision, but you can't ignore the momentum swing if you are stopped, sometimes it's best to be conservative. The skill level of your team has a huge impact on the decision as well. If I were Belicheck, I would go for it much more often.

[Big C]

Re: 2 point conversion - you need to look at game situations before you can make an analysis like yours. Simple example is you score 3 TD's a game, if you have a 50% success rate, in one game it works out, next game it doesn't. This isn't a decision that can be based on season long stats, it's the game situation that effects most of the decision on whether to go for 2 or not.

 

Going for 4th and short is also a decision with a huge impact on a game and not to be taken lightly. Obviously, field position plays a big role in the decision, but you can't ignore the momentum swing if you are stopped, sometimes it's best to be conservative. The skill level of your team has a huge impact on the decision as well. If I were Belicheck, I would go for it much more often.

 

Absolutely. But I feel like teams could and should be playing a little more aggressive with the 2-point conversions early on in the game, when there isn't as much riding on a single point. The Steelers were going for 2 early and often and found plenty of success doing so. Before they moved the conversion kick back it was definitely a "bird in hand" situation, but with the number of missed XP's after the move I expect the trend to move steadily toward teams going for two more often.

[KD in CA]

You keep saying that but go back days and you will see this same argument from me.

 

If you put the blind resume of Shaun Hill next to that of Orlovsky or Yates you'd be surprised. We are literally calling them competent because they have played before. It isn't because they've played at a competent level. Jeff Tuel started a game but i don't believe that he can operate an NFL offense.

 

There still isn't ONE valid argument that the guy deserves a spot. My intial post were the reasons that I didn't think that he, or anyone like him around the league, should have a job in the NFL. No one has disputed or debated any of that. All we've heard is that "he's solid" or "a vet." He hasn't been good when he's played. There are guys (Orlovsky again) that have been worse that just got picked up. I'm looking for a reason that an NFL team feels more comfortable with a guy that's been bad vs. an unknown? That only happens at QB. You never see some awful OT kick around because he's experienced. They will try new guy after new guy. The only other place that it consistently happens is with kickers.

 

Well the timing is suspicious re: Jones, but that's neither here nor there. But what's with the weird thread title? Who is "protecting" Yates? Who is he being protected from (if not Jones)? Doesn't make much sense.

 

As for the blind resumes, I think you place waaaay too much much value on stats for a group of players who by their nature have very limited stats, which obviously makes them much less reliable. Did you know that your favorite unemployed QB - Collin Krapernick - also sports a 6.8 ypa average over the last 3 seasons (and getting steadily worse through his career)? Probably not.

 

So yes, there IS one valid reason Yates 'deserves a spot' even if you refuse to acknowledge it: You need a backup QB who has actually played in the NFL before. And you have not demonstrated that Yates is any better or worse than any of the other scrubs available for that job.

[Thurman#1]

I've been preaching (maybe crusading) in other threads as to why you would waste a roster spot on Yates. Here are my reasons:

- If he is playing for an extended period you are losing anyways

- You miss the chance to get a look at Peterman

- You have one less pit to use elsewhere on the roster

- If cut you can probably call him on any given Monday and add him back

- Is he really better than Kaep, RG, Shaun Hill, Whitehurst, Or Ponder

 

We keep hearing that "the guy knows the offense." I guess that's a reason to bring him to camp but someone please convince me that he deserves a roster spot. Would the team be any worse with Peterman taking snaps than Yates? I'd rather win 3 games with the rookie than 3 games with a guy in his 30's. What am I missing (other than NFL teams like certain guys because they have played in games before)? Playing in games and being bad shouldn't be a prerequisite for a future job.

 

 

 

It may not be what you want to hear but from McDermott's POV the rationale is clear. He wants to do what he can to win this year.

 

I'm not thrilled with it either, I'd rather have let Tyrod go and rebuilt with someone like Yates as the starter, personally. But if you care about this year and you want everyone to know it, you keep Tyrod and Yates, both.

 

Yates did alright in Texas a couple of years ago as an injury replacement.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

No, it's because Yates is a 30 year-old that's sucked. If you go back, you will see that this conversation started before Cardale got traded. You haven't been here too long but I have a longstanding disdain for wasting roster spots on guys that have no upside (I've been wrong before). If you needed Yates you could sign him back the next day. I don't see the team being any better with him playing than Peterman. I don't see a difference in wins or losses. So his value is that he's played? Big deal

 

Tyrod was also a former conference player of the year and a guy that had a massive college career. His size led him to be drafted later. When in Baltimore he was largely thought of as "an intriguing young option." There are guys like that every year (Trevor Siemian last year). That's not who TJ Yates is. He's a guy with a terrible resume that is familiar with the system. So what?

 

 

 

Tyrod had a really good college career but it was about a lot more than his size that he didn't get drafted till later.

 

2007 72/134 53.7% 927 yards ... 5 TDs, 3 INTs

2008 99/173 57.2% 1036 yards ... 2 TDs, 7 INTs

2009 136/243 56.0% 2311 yards ... 13 TDs, 5 INTs

2010 188/315 59.7% 2743 yards ... 24 TDs, 5 INTs

 

Those aren't really that impressive for college. They played 14 games in 2010 and that's not a lot of passes or production in the passing game for 14 games.

 

He was already keeping his INTs down but also showing problems in the passing game. He was also already an absolutely excellent runner.

 

But his height wasn't the only reason he was drafted later. Probably not even the main reason.

[Kirby Jackson]

Re: 2 point conversion - you need to look at game situations before you can make an analysis like yours. Simple example is you score 3 TD's a game, if you have a 50% success rate, in one game it works out, next game it doesn't. This isn't a decision that can be based on season long stats, it's the game situation that effects most of the decision on whether to go for 2 or not.

 

Going for 4th and short is also a decision with a huge impact on a game and not to be taken lightly. Obviously, field position plays a big role in the decision, but you can't ignore the momentum swing if you are stopped, sometimes it's best to be conservative. The skill level of your team has a huge impact on the decision as well. If I were Belicheck, I would go for it much more often.

It certainly has to be a game situation but the point remains true. If you score that first TD and go for 2 and get it you are up a point. If you miss it you are down a point. Obviously, the game situations dictate the decision but it's the other scores that get younto that point that we are really talking about. If you score on the first drive of the game do you go for 8-0 or 7-0? Teams have traditionally gone for the XP. They've done this though because "that's what everyone does." If your 2 point percentage is 45% for example that's statistically a good decision. If your 2 point percentage is 50% that's statistically the wrong decision.

 

The 4th down numbers have a lot more factors but a similar impact. Teams have traditionally played it safe. Their motivation is largely because "that's what's always been done." People have always accepted that as the right decision because it was the most common. With more data available coaches are starting to get questioned more for going against the data. The most obvious example was Rex in OT against Miami.

 

There are lots of articles and information on both subjects that are pretty interesting. Like I said earlier we are starting to see conventional thinking being tested. It takes a coach secure in his job and with a fairly large ego to believe they can change the way that things are done.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

Well the timing is suspicious re: Jones, but that's neither here nor there. But what's with the weird thread title? Who is "protecting" Yates? Who is he being protected from (if not Jones)? Doesn't make much sense.

 

As for the blind resumes, I think you place waaaay too much much value on stats for a group of players who by their nature have very limited stats, which obviously makes them much less reliable. Did you know that your favorite unemployed QB - Collin Krapernick - also sports a 6.8 ypa average over the last 3 seasons (and getting steadily worse through his career)? Probably not.

 

So yes, there IS one valid reason Yates 'deserves a spot' even if you refuse to acknowledge it: You need a backup QB who has actually played in the NFL before. And you have not demonstrated that Yates is any better or worse than any of the other scrubs available for that job.

I know that you believe the "timing is curious" so here's your proof that this conversation started prior: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/194762-im-hoping-peterman-really-have-a-good-camp/?p=4439019. It goes back further too. Here's another conversation from April: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/193729-5-qbs-only-3-will-be-retained/. So hopefully this erases any doubt that you may have regarding the "curious timing" (but that's neither here nor there).

 

If you believe that I haven't looked into all of this with some degree of depth I'm a little insulted. Of course I know where all of those guys stand comparatively. I've even posted some of it in here but don't want to bore people with that. The sample sizes vary; everyone knows that. We only have the data that we have though. It tells more of the story than no data. The more that these guys play the more solid the data becomes. Largely "you are what your record says you are."

 

Dak Prescott was the Cowboys backup last year. He had never played in the NFL. Just saying...

 

 

 

Tyrod had a really good college career but it was about a lot more than his size that he didn't get drafted till later.

 

2007 72/134 53.7% 927 yards ... 5 TDs, 3 INTs

2008 99/173 57.2% 1036 yards ... 2 TDs, 7 INTs

2009 136/243 56.0% 2311 yards ... 13 TDs, 5 INTs

2010 188/315 59.7% 2743 yards ... 24 TDs, 5 INTs

 

Those aren't really that impressive for college. They played 14 games in 2010 and that's not a lot of passes or production in the passing game for 14 games.

 

He was already keeping his INTs down but also showing problems in the passing game. He was also already an absolutely excellent runner.

 

But his height wasn't the only reason he was drafted later. Probably not even the main reason.

He was the ACC player of the year!! He had a 137.5 career rating. He led the entire NCAA in YPA in 2009. That sounds familiar. He was and remains a big play QB.

 

He was a great college player.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[cba fan]

That seems to be the general consensus. I'm not trying to go all Mike Schopp on this but it makes no sense to me. Everyone assumes that he will get a job (and others like him around the league). The question is really why do teams do that?

You need to look no furthur than he was signed on the new guys watch(McDerma)

 

And all the old guys not signed by McDerma are slowly being shown the door. Happens every time a new staff replaces an unsuccessful old staff. When it is two guys tied for a position you can bet the old regime guy goes.

Edited July 28, 2017 by cba fan

[Watkins101]

I get the argument, but I would prefer to have a "safe" vet like a Yates or a Matt Moore as a backup. Can come in and hopefully play .500 ball if they have to; that's what you want in your no. 2.

You don't want to be forced into tanking the season if your starter goes down, which would Be more likely if you have a guy like peterman as the no. 2.

If Tyrod is out for an extended amount of time, I do not see Yates as being capable to win enough games for the playoffs. I would rather have Peterman in and tank for a better draft position.

[klos63]

It certainly has to be a game situation but the point remains true. If you score that first TD and go for 2 and get it you are up a point. If you miss it you are down a point. Obviously, the game situations dictate the decision but it's the other scores that get younto that point that we are really talking about. If you score on the first drive of the game do you go for 8-0 or 7-0? Teams have traditionally gone for the XP. They've done this though because "that's what everyone does." If your 2 point percentage is 45% for example that's statistically a good decision. If your 2 point percentage is 50% that's statistically the wrong decision.

 

The 4th down numbers have a lot more factors but a similar impact. Teams have traditionally played it safe. Their motivation is largely because "that's what's always been done." People have always accepted that as the right decision because it was the most common. With more data available coaches are starting to get questioned more for going against the data. The most obvious example was Rex in OT against Miami.

 

There are lots of articles and information on both subjects that are pretty interesting. Like I said earlier we are starting to see conventional thinking being tested. It takes a coach secure in his job and with a fairly large ego to believe they can change the way that things are done.

Sometimes 'that's what's always been done' , is because it's a good idea. I'm not against going for 2 or going for it on 4th, but it's not always a bad idea to not go for it. Like coaches always say - sometimes punting is the best call. It's a good discussion, but each decision is really based on that situation at the exact moment.

[eball]

Sometimes 'that's what's always been done' , is because it's a good idea. I'm not against going for 2 or going for it on 4th, but it's not always a bad idea to not go for it. Like coaches always say - sometimes punting is the best call. It's a good discussion, but each decision is really based on that situation at the exact moment.

 

Only if you're playing in a vacuum. I posted this in a different thread, but it's like basic strategy in blackjack. Sure, in the exact moment you are looking at a 16 against the dealer's face card you don't want to hit because the odds for that hand say you'll bust, but if you are taking the long view you hit it every time.

 

Kirby is right -- it takes a very confident coach who is not afraid of being 2nd-guessed to buck the "it's what has always been done" trend and use the data to his advantage.

[BringBackOrton]

We need to trade back for Cardale or Kirby is never gonna stop.

 

Maybe if we get JT Barrett, this topic will fizzle.

[klos63]

 

Only if you're playing in a vacuum. I posted this in a different thread, but it's like basic strategy in blackjack. Sure, in the exact moment you are looking at a 16 against the dealer's face card you don't want to hit because the odds for that hand say you'll bust, but if you are taking the long view you hit it every time.

 

Kirby is right -- it takes a very confident coach who is not afraid of being 2nd-guessed to buck the "it's what has always been done" trend and use the data to his advantage.

no you don't, because there is a chance you lose all you money before you have a chance to start a winning streak. I've seen too many games in where the coach goes for 2 at the 'not according to the book' and really put the team behind the 8 ball. I think it's unwise to gamble on the game when it's not necessary.

[Kirby Jackson]

We need to trade back for Cardale or Kirby is never gonna stop.

 

Maybe if we get JT Barrett, this topic will fizzle.

How take but I started on this in April (or sooner). You can check the archives and I couldn't have less interest in Barrett as a pro.

 

None of it changes the fact that my premise is not wrong. A decision should never be made on "he's done it more" it should be made on "who will do it best next time." If the answer is Yates, that's fine. The decision making process shouldn't factor in that he played in Dennison's system in 2013. All we keep hearing is that they like him because "he knows the system." So, he hasn't been good in it. If he give you a better chance tomorrow than Peterman he is the answer. I just don't believe that to be the case. His performance (and others like him) are not better than the unknown IMO. That might prove to be wrong but the premise isn't.

 

If you want the topic to fizzle don't chime in.

Sometimes 'that's what's always been done' , is because it's a good idea. I'm not against going for 2 or going for it on 4th, but it's not always a bad idea to not go for it. Like coaches always say - sometimes punting is the best call. It's a good discussion, but each decision is really based on that situation at the exact moment.

It's a good idea always has to be supported by the data. The result is different from the idea. Eball's blackjack post is a strong one. The best idea is the statistically more likely scenario. The best result doesn't always happen that way but it does more often than not. Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[BringBackOrton]

How take but I started on this in April (or sooner). You can check the archives and I couldn't have less interest in Barrett as a pro.

 

None of it changes the fact that my premise is not wrong. A decision should never be made on "he's done it more" it should be made on "who will do it best next time." If the answer is Yates, that's fine. The decision making process shouldn't factor in that he played in Dennison's system in 2013. All we keep hearing is that they like him because "he knows the system." So, he hasn't been good in it. If he give you a better chance tomorrow than Peterman he is the answer. I just don't believe that to be the case. His performance (and others like him) are not better than the unknown IMO. That might prove to be wrong but the premise isn't.

If you want the topic to fizzle don't chime in.

It's a good idea always has to be supported by the data. The result is different from the idea. Eball's blackjack post is a strong one. The best idea is the statistically more likely scenario. The best result doesn't always happen that way but it does more often than not.

Clearly the coaches believe this.

 

So, there you go.

[major]

I'd sign kaepernick over Yates. Kaep gives us a better chance to win a game than Yates does, if tyrod goes down

[KD in CA]

I know that you believe the "timing is curious" so here's your proof that this conversation started prior: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/194762-im-hoping-peterman-really-have-a-good-camp/?p=4439019. It goes back further too. Here's another conversation from April: https://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/193729-5-qbs-only-3-will-be-retained/. So hopefully this erases any doubt that you may have regarding the "curious timing" (but that's neither here nor there).

 

If you believe that I haven't looked into all of this with some degree of depth I'm a little insulted. Of course I know where all of those guys stand comparatively. I've even posted some of it in here but don't want to bore people with that. The sample sizes vary; everyone knows that. We only have the data that we have though. It tells more of the story than no data. The more that these guys play the more solid the data becomes. Largely "you are what your record says you are."

 

In that thread you state we should cut Yates and keep Jones and Peterman, so it is about Jones. You want them to have two QBs who have never taken a meaningful snap in the NFL and no veteran backup. The coaches don't agree with you. And I'm guessing they've looked into this a lot deeper than you have.

[Fan in Chicago]

I've been preaching (maybe crusading) in other threads as to why you would waste a roster spot on Yates.

We keep hearing that "the guy knows the offense." I guess that's a reason to bring him to camp but someone please convince me that he deserves a roster spot. Would the team be any worse with Peterman taking snaps than Yates? I'd rather win 3 games with the rookie than 3 games with a guy in his 30's.

bumpity bump

[BringBackOrton]

If Peterman beats out Yates, I'd cut him and sign an UDFA QB

[Eric Moulds on my A**]

Get him outta here