One thought on the game, in a particular order

[Hapless Bills Fan]

26 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

How often, over the course of an entire season, does a kickoff get run back? For real yards? How often does it get kicked into the endzone? What year is it?

 

Nice try, reducing ST to kickoffs and asking how often they get run back.  Straw man.  There are punts also, and when dealing with a question of what the Bills should focus on, it seems relevant to focus on the Bills performance over the last two weeks.

 

Let's just look at the last 2 weeks. 

Today:

1) The Bills gifted the Jets a drive starting on the Buf 46 after a kickoff return, resulting in a FG

2) Then they gifted the Jets a drive starting on the Buf 8 after a kickoff return, resulting in a TD

3) Then they had a field goal blocked

 

That was  a 13 point swing in the score right there.  The Bills lost by 4 points, 27 to 23.

 

Last week:

1) The Bills muffed a punt reception gifting the Phins a drive starting on the Buff 36, resulting in a TD

2) The Bills missed a field goal

3) The Bills missed an extra point

 

Again, that's an 11 point swing in the score right there.  The Bills lost by 4 points, 21 to 17.

 

Again: if you want to lobby for better DB fine, but to claim “special teams is irrelevant” when they give your opponent short fields or allow returns deep into your territory several times in a game, is preposterous. 

 

Relatively speaking on the scale of Bills problems right now, insisting we must have better DB is like complaining about a hangnail when your fingers are numb because your arm has Compartment Syndrome from a crush injury and needs immediate surgery to avoid amputation.

 

If you want to back up your claim to understand the game, back away from the "special teams is irrelevant" thing.

 

Quote

The mutation of kickoffs into what they now removes at least 50% of the relevance of STs.

 

90% of all statistics are made up, including, I assert, your claim that kickoff changes remove 50% of the relevance of ST.  And whether or not it's true on average for the league, the fact is right now ST are killing us.

 

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

But that's the point: teams get graded on seasons, not on single games. Or worse, single instances of a blocked kick in a single game. For every blocked kick, or INT, or punt flub or whatever, good teams are good, so the outcome of the mistake is almost always mitigated. How? Because 90% of the time after the mistake, the opposing team has to go right back to the probable(running an offense, playing defense) and be successful with it, for the mistake to matter. 

On a macro level and to the lay people who care yes, teams are graded on entire seasons. 

 

Within team constructs however, every player is graded on every play in which he participates, in every game. Entire seasons are comprised of the sum of their parts: every play in every quarter in every half in every game after all, so it stands to reason why they are broken down on micro levels after each game by staffs on every team.

 

And yes, better teams are better at overcoming those rare catastrophes when they occur. This stands to reason also.

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Nice try, reducing ST to kickoffs and asking how often they get run back.  Straw man.  There are punts also, and when dealing with a question of what the Bills should focus on, it seems relevant to focus on the Bills performance over the last two weeks.

 

Let's just look at the last 2 weeks. 

Today:

1) The Bills gifted the Jets a drive starting on the Buf 46 after a kickoff return, resulting in a FG

2) Then they gifted the Jets a drive starting on the Buf 8 after a kickoff return, resulting in a TD

3) Then they had a field goal blocked

 

That was  a 13 point swing in the score right there.  The Bills lost by 4 points, 27 to 23.

 

Last week:

1) The Bills muffed a punt reception gifting the Phins a drive starting on the Buff 36, resulting in a TD

2) The Bills missed a field goal

3) The Bills missed an extra point

 

Again, that's an 11 point swing in the score right there.  The Bills lost by 4 points, 21 to 17.

 

Again: if you want to lobby for better DB fine, but to claim “special teams is irrelevant” when they give your opponent short fields or allow returns deep into your territory several times in a game, is preposterous. 

 

Relatively speaking on the scale of Bills problems right now, insisting we must have better DB is like complaining about a hangnail when your fingers are numb because your arm has Compartment Syndrome from a crush injury and needs immediate surgery to avoid amputation.

 

If you want to back up your claim to understand the game, back away from the "special teams is irrelevant" thing.

 

 

90% of all statistics are made up, including, I assert, your claim that kickoff changes remove 50% of the relevance of ST.  And whether or not it's true on average for the league, the fact is right now ST are killing us.

 

I stopped at "straw man". Before I read anything else:

I am done with people who don't know what a strawman argument is, using that term. You tell me exactly what a straw man argument is, specifically, now. I'm not going to read anything else of your post, which may be good for all I know, until that happens.

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

But that's the point: teams get graded on seasons, not on single games. Or worse, single instances of a blocked kick in a single game. For every blocked kick, or INT, or punt flub or whatever, good teams are good, so the outcome of the mistake is almost always mitigated. How? Because 90% of the time after the mistake, the opposing team has to go right back to the probable(running an offense, playing defense) and be successful with it, for the mistake to matter. 

With this post I am specifically referring to the ST teams changes, combined with the elite punters and kickers of today, that have made ST significantly less relevant. Those rule changes weren't 15 years ago, so WTF? 

 

Also, there's a difference between an organization showing a pattern of being unprepared/poorly led, over a set period of time, and, delving into each instance of bad managers/decisions. You can do both. And, pointing to a series of management teams making the same mistake does not equal saying all management teams are the same, nor does it suggest that there hasn't been a series of teams.

 

Nope. What I am saying is: regardless of who is in charge/who holds the power, pretending that it's 1985 is a problem. You do see that you could line up 10 GMs, and if they all approach DBs the same, it wouldn't matter if you only had one for 10 years, or all ten of them, each for one year, over ten years, we'd get the same result. Right?

Your words were that if they plan at all they've planned poorly for the last 15 years.  You lumped folks together, not me.

 

Your fixation on DBs is amusing.   You do realize that DBs make up the highest percentage of players on an active roster?  I think today we had 10 active perhaps?  Let's say you make it a dozen.  Where do you subtract the other two?  Go with one TE?  Two RBs?  Hope no one gets hurt elsewhere?  

 

It is like the QB situation this year.  You get multiple injuries at a spot you then have to fill in.  As long as roster spots are finite that is how it works.

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

On a macro level and to the lay people who care yes, teams are graded on entire seasons. 

 

Within team constructs however, every player is graded on every play in which he participates, in every game. Entire seasons are comprised of the sum of their parts: every play in every quarter in every half in every game after all, so it stands to reason why they are broken down on micro levels after each game by staffs on every team.

 

And yes, better teams are better at overcoming those rare catastrophes when they occur. This stands to reason also.

 

 

Yes, but how? Better teams don't just wish overcoming their mistakes into being. They are better at the things that are most likely to happen in a game. We can PFF our way into it, if you want, but the approach doesn't matter. In the end, the teams, players, team on a single play, player on a single play, player executing fundamental within a single play is nice...but if they aren't the best at what is most likely to happen? Silly Example: Kyle Williams could run the ball more. We could examine him, the play, the team, and conclude that he should run the ball more, in general, never mind goal line...because it worked. Is that probable?  

[K-9]

1 minute ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Yes, but how? Better teams don't just wish overcoming their mistakes into being. They are better at the things that are most likely to happen in a game. We can PFF our way into it, if you want, but the approach doesn't matter. In the end, the teams, players, team on a single play, player on a single play, player executing fundamental within a single play is nice...but if they aren't the best at what is most likely to happen? Silly Example: Kyle Williams could run the ball more. We could examine him, the play, the team, and conclude that he should run the ball more, in general, never mind goal line...because it worked. Is that probable?  

I’m not going down this rabbit hole.

 

As rare as they may be, special teams gaffes are relevant when they occur and are detrimental to a team’s performance during a given game. 

 

ESPECIALLY when that team may not be good enough to overcome the gaffes. While I agree the Bills and many other teams aren’t good enough to overcome them, that is a different discussion. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, OCinBuffalo said:

I stopped at "straw man". Before I read anything else:

I am done with people who don't know what a strawman argument is, using that term. You tell me exactly what a straw man argument is, specifically, now. I'm not going to read anything else of your post, which may be good for all I know, until that happens.

 

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." (Wiki)

 

I said " If you want to lobby for better DB fine, but to claim “special teams is irrelevant” when they give your opponent short fields or allow returns deep into your territory several times, is preposterous."

 

You responded "How often, over the course of an entire season, does a kickoff get run back? For real yards? How often does it get kicked into the endzone? What year is it? The mutation of kickoffs into what they now removes at least 50% of the relevance of STs."

 

To respond to a general point about ST giving our opponent short fields or allowing returns deep into our territory, with a question about how often over an entire season a kickoff gets run back and an unsupported claim that the rule changes on kickoffs removes 50% of the relevance of ST, is the very essence of a straw man argument per the definition given above, because in the post I made to which you were responding, I nowhere made a claim that problems on ST were limited to kickoff returns, or largely kickoff returns, or impacted by rule changes on kickoff returns.  Thus you were refuting an argument that I did not present - a straw man.

 

I think you kind of look pretty silly right about now, but Imma back away 'cuz I don't deal with folks who don't debate straight on, and to demand a definition of straw man and imply that I don't know what a strawman argument is, is a pretty good sign straight debate on the merits is not where you're at.  And jolly durn condescending to boot.

[OCinBuffalo]

24 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Your words were that if they plan at all they've planned poorly for the last 15 years.  You lumped folks together, not me.

 

Your fixation on DBs is amusing.   You do realize that DBs make up the highest percentage of players on an active roster?  I think today we had 10 active perhaps?  Let's say you make it a dozen.  Where do you subtract the other two?  Go with one TE?  Two RBs?  Hope no one gets hurt elsewhere?  

 

It is like the QB situation this year.  You get multiple injuries at a spot you then have to fill in.  As long as roster spots are finite that is how it works.

 

 

Yes, and my second set of words explained, in good enough for anyone detail, how it is possible to say that the team has made the same mistake, while also acknowledging that a series of managers, each made it. There's no lumping. There is semantics, which is what you are arguing, and I am done with.

 

Ask yourself: why do we have 10 DBs on the roster? I surely didn't say we need that many. I don't think we need that many. 

 

So, ask yourself: why are they there? Did we have 10 DBs coming out of camp on the roster? How many DBs total have been on this roster from the end of camp until today? What is the least number of DBs, total, we have had on a Bills roster for any season in the last 10? Is there a single season where we haven't had at least 15 different DBs on a Bills roster in the last 10? When you're done answering those questions, and thinking perhaps about them, get back to me. 

 

Heh, good thing you brought that up....

Edited December 10, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Yes, and my second set of words explained, in good enough for anyone detail, how it is possible to say that the team has made the same mistake, while also acknowledging that a series of managers, each made it. There's no lumping. There is semantics, which is what you are arguing, and I am done with.

 

Ask yourself: why do we have 10 DBs on the roster? I surely didn't say we need that many. I don't think we need that many. 

 

So, ask yourself: why are they there? Did we have 10 DBs coming out of camp on the roster? How DBs total have been on this roster from the end of camp until today? What is the least number of DBs, total, we have had on a Bills roster for any season in the last 10? Is there a single season where we haven't had at least 15 different DBs on a Bills roster in the last 10? When you're done answering those questions, and thinking perhaps about them, get back to me. 

 

Heh, good thing you brought that up....

Did we have 10 opening day?  Yes if I recall correctly.  Did some get hurt or do a stupid retirement?  Yes.  Did they have to then bring more in?  Yes.  

 

Yiur oosition is ridiculous.  To meet your plan you would have to have a third of your active roster be DBs.  That cannot happen and fill every other position adequately.

 

And you criticize others for not being able to plan?

[OCinBuffalo]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I’m not going down this rabbit hole.

 

As rare as they may be, special teams gaffes are relevant when they occur and are detrimental to a team’s performance during a given game. 

 

ESPECIALLY when that team may not be good enough to overcome the gaffes. While I agree the Bills and many other teams aren’t good enough to overcome them, that is a different discussion. 

Yeah, the basic premises of proper statistical analysis and management, that are used everywhere, every day...total rabbit hole.  

 

True. But again, existence is not probability. These gaffes exist. They are not probable, and they become less and less probable every time the NFL changes the ST rules, again.

 

The next biggest contributing factor towards forcing ST into irrelevance is: the "normal" offense and defense play. The better you are, the less they matter. A TD drive that starts on your 25 == one that starts on their 25. You don't get more points. Hence, a team that can move the football, because they are good at the probable, could score a 150 yard TD just as easily as a 75 yard one, it would just take longer.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

obvious troll bait.

 

Maybe so.

 

[Dadonkadonk]

The OP is just wrong.  It's not even close to an accurate assessment of the needs on the defense.  

It was not the Db's that lost this game. It was the lack of a pass rush and the o-line that lost this game.  Did you see the Jets D-line blowing up the middle of the Bills O-line.  Did you see the Jets bring multiple rushers.  White didn't play well.  The defense plays a lot of zone which protects the DBs.  They need pass rushers and Edmunds to get better.

 

[OCinBuffalo]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Did we have 10 opening day?  Yes if I recall correctly.  Did some get hurt or do a stupid retirement?  Yes.  Did they have to then bring more in?  Yes.  

 

Yiur oosition is ridiculous.  To meet your plan you would have to have a third of your active roster be DBs.  That cannot happen and fill every other position adequately.

 

And you criticize others for not being able to plan?

Oh, so you didn't need to actually do the work of looking up and specifically analyzing the data...that would have supported your own point(if you actually had one, which as you can now see, you don't). 

 

You just jumped to the end and started making excuses for why we've had far more than 10 DBs on this roster in total this season. Hmmm. And, once again, you've attributed an argument I haven't made(we need 10 DBs on the roster) to me. 

 

As I said, I don't want 10 DBs on the roster. Actually, I'd be fine with 7. 1 backup CB 1 backup S, and 5 guys to play dime(+2 LB) or even use a backup and just use one LB. So, no, I think it's pretty clear: I don't want 10 DBs on the roster, not ever.

 

Now: go back and explain why we have 10. Or, go back and explain why we've had 15+ on the roster year over year. That's my plan for you. I know it's good.

6 minutes ago, Dadonkadonk said:

The OP is just wrong.  It's not even close to an accurate assessment of the needs on the defense.  

It was not the Db's that lost this game. It was the lack of a pass rush and the o-line that lost this game.  Did you see the Jets D-line blowing up the middle of the Bills O-line.  Did you see the Jets bring multiple rushers.  White didn't play well.  The defense plays a lot of zone which protects the DBs.  They need pass rushers and Edmunds to get better.

 

You really don't understand:

1. We had no rush because we refused to rush....and played cover instead. Playing cover, do you know what that is? It seems like you don't, because you're describing it as though it's an error, when it was intentional.

2. Because #1, there's no way the Jets should have been able to complete long 3rd down plays, yet they did, even though we helped our weak cover guys...with even more weak cover guys. 7 in coverage...against 3-4. 

 

What the Jets did is irrelevant. We're talking about our team, purposefully trying to cover a weakness, by sends more guys at it, and that approach failing.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Oh, so you didn't need to actually do the work of looking up and specifically analyzing the data...that would have supported your own point(if you actually had one, which as you can now see, you don't). 

 

You just jumped to the end and started making excuses for why we've had far more than 10 DBs on this roster in total this season. Hmmm. And, once again, you've attributed an argument I haven't made(we need 10 DBs on the roster) to me. 

 

As I said, I don't want 10 DBs on the roster. Actually, I'd be fine with 7. 1 backup CB 1 backup S, and 5 guys to play dime(+2 LB) or even use a backup and just use one LB. So, no, I think it's pretty clear: I don't want 10 DBs on the roster, not ever.

 

Now: go back and explain why we have 10. Or, go back and explain why we've had 15+ on the roster year over year. That's my plan for you. I know it's good.

I didn't look the exact number up because I don't need to do so to find your idea silly.  Let's say they have your 5 guys.  One gets hurt.  As happened with the team this year.  Then what?  They have to fill in either from the practice squad or others practice squads.

 

Your model does not take injury into account, nor does it take into account reactive measures by the opposition like running the ball.  And so on.

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Yeah, the basic premises of proper statistical analysis and management, that are used everywhere, every day...total rabbit hole.  

 

True. But again, existence is not probability. These gaffes exist. They are not probable, and they become less and less probable every time the NFL changes the ST rules, again.

 

The next biggest contributing factor towards forcing ST into irrelevance is: the "normal" offense and defense play. The better you are, the less they matter. A TD drive that starts on your 25 == one that starts on their 25. You don't get more points. Hence, a team that can move the football, because they are good at the probable, could score a 150 yard TD just as easily as a 75 yard one, it would just take longer.

I don’t disagree with statistical analysis.

 

But no matter how much you insist otherwise, rarity does not equate to irrelevancy. And that was on full display today. 

 

If you insist on believing that the special teams mistakes we saw today didn’t have a negative impact on our ability to win the game, what can I say? Given that we aren’t good enough to overcome them, I’d think placing more weight on their negative impact would be obvious.

 

Anyway, it’s been interesting. I wish you luck in your further statistical analyses. 

[OCinBuffalo]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Nice try, reducing ST to kickoffs and asking how often they get run back.  Straw man.  There are punts also, and when dealing with a question of what the Bills should focus on, it seems relevant to focus on the Bills performance over the last two weeks.

 

Let's just look at the last 2 weeks. 

Today:

1) The Bills gifted the Jets a drive starting on the Buf 46 after a kickoff return, resulting in a FG

2) Then they gifted the Jets a drive starting on the Buf 8 after a kickoff return, resulting in a TD

3) Then they had a field goal blocked

 

That was  a 13 point swing in the score right there.  The Bills lost by 4 points, 27 to 23.

 

Last week:

1) The Bills muffed a punt reception gifting the Phins a drive starting on the Buff 36, resulting in a TD

2) The Bills missed a field goal

3) The Bills missed an extra point

 

Again, that's an 11 point swing in the score right there.  The Bills lost by 4 points, 21 to 17.

 

Again: if you want to lobby for better DB fine, but to claim “special teams is irrelevant” when they give your opponent short fields or allow returns deep into your territory several times in a game, is preposterous. 

 

Relatively speaking on the scale of Bills problems right now, insisting we must have better DB is like complaining about a hangnail when your fingers are numb because your arm has Compartment Syndrome from a crush injury and needs immediate surgery to avoid amputation.

 

If you want to back up your claim to understand the game, back away from the "special teams is irrelevant" thing.

 

 

90% of all statistics are made up, including, I assert, your claim that kickoff changes remove 50% of the relevance of ST.  And whether or not it's true on average for the league, the fact is right now ST are killing us.

 

Of course all statistics are "made up". Water is also wet. Stats don't just jump out of Zeus' head. No, every single time one is created, a process is followed. We can talk about the process good or bad, but please, we use statistics every day, all the time, and they are ALL made up. Your computer processor is using them right now. Is your machine working, or does it look made up?

 

Now, on to your bad attempt at using "strawman". Hey, at least you're trying, which is why I am responding. First, YOU, not I brought up special teams. So, when I respond to your argument about special teams, by saying special teams are irrelevant, in the context and comparison of my chief argument, bad DB play, and cite specific statistical modalities as to why? Not a strawman. I didn't create a special teams argument and attribute it to you: you created one, thus, ending all hope for your strawman. I created a distinct argument that says: if we compare the # of defensive backs in coverage plays(what 60 at least?) to the # of STs plays(maybe 10), clearly STs are significantly less. And, with so many of them having such little chance of actually changing the game, 1 a game, 2?, compared with every down D Back play? They rapidly approach, if not smack right into: irrelevance.

 

Your next post is what is called: "anecdotal". Yes, you have a story. About 2 games. We play 16. We've played 160 in 10 years. D-back play has largely been horrendous, because we refuse to approach it properly. We think 1, 1st round draft pick is the answer. It is not. Put it this way: we are never going to get out of our division if we don't get serious about d-back players as a whole. We might get out with mediocre ST.

 

Now, if you wanted a real straw man? I could say something like "we had great special teams all through the 2000s,  Brian Moorman was our best player, and we never made the playoffs, so they are irrelevant, so you are wrong". I am not saying anything like that. I am saying: with better D-back play, we have a much higher propensity of making ALL mistakes, ST and O, less relevant. Apart from that, ST is becoming less relevant by the year, due to the NFL and skill of punters and kicker, and clearly the number of end zone kicks makes them nearly irrelevant if not completely.

34 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I didn't look the exact number up because I don't need to do so to find your idea silly.  Let's say they have your 5 guys.  One gets hurt.  As happened with the team this year.  Then what?  They have to fill in either from the practice squad or others practice squads.

 

Your model does not take injury into account, nor does it take into account reactive measures by the opposition like running the ball.  And so on.

That's why we have a practice squad. The program I am describing includes that. The whole point of the....

 

Wait a sec: tell me, do you want 10 DBs on the roster or not? Now I have no idea what you are arguing. (This other guy wants to know what a strawman is: I will tell him, YOU saying I want better DB play, therefore, I want 12 DBs on the roster == strawman)

 

Why don't you take a break, figure out your argument, stop trying to create mine for me, and then come back?

Edited December 10, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Of course all statistics are "made up". Water is also wet. Stats don't just jump out of Zeus' head. No, every single time one is created, a process is followed. We can talk about the process good or bad, but please, we use statistics every day, all the time, and they are ALL made up. Your computer processor is using them right now. Is your machine working, or does it look made up?

 

Now, on to your bad attempt at using "strawman". Hey, at least you're trying, which is why I am responding. First, YOU, not I brought up special teams. So, when I respond to your argument about special teams, by saying special teams are irrelevant, in the context and comparison of my chief argument, bad DB play, and cite specific statistical modalities as to why? Not a strawman. I didn't create a special teams argument and attribute it to you: you created one, thus, ending all hope for your strawman. I created a distinct argument that says: if we compare the # of defensive backs in coverage plays(what 60 at least?) to the # of STs plays(maybe 10), clearly STs are significantly less. And, with so many of them having such little chance of actually changing the game, 1 a game, 2?, compared with every down D Back play? They rapidly approach, if not smack right into: irrelevance.

 

Your next post is what is called: "anecdotal". Yes, you have a story. About 2 games. We play 16. We've played 160 in 10 years. D-back play has largely been horrendous, because we refuse to approach it properly. We think 1, 1st round draft pick is the answer. It is not. Put it this way: we are never going to get out of our division if we don't get serious about d-back players as a whole. We might get out with mediocre ST.

 

Now, if you wanted a real straw man? I could say something like "we had great special teams all through the 2000s,  Brian Moorman was our best player, and we never made the playoffs, so they are irrelevant, so you are wrong". I am not saying anything like that. I am saying: with better D-back play, we have a much higher propensity of making ALL mistakes, ST and O, less relevant. Apart from that, ST is becoming less relevant by the year, due to the NFL.

That's why we have a practice squad. The program I am describing includes that. The whole point of the....

 

Wait a sec: tell me, do you want 10 DBs on the roster or not? Now I have no idea what you are arguing. (This other guy wants to know what a strawman is: I will tell him, YOU saying I want better DB play, therefore, I want 12 DBs on the roster == strawman)

 

Why don't you take a break, figure out your argument, stop trying to create mine for me, and then come back?

You want 5 starting caliber CBs, correct?  Now ignoring the idea that drafting such quality means you'd spend a ton of capital on one position vs strengthen other areas, what happens when one gets hurt?  With your plan you would not even have anyone on the roster familiar with the schemes that could fill in.  

 

Your plan is actually the antithesis of what you want to highlight.

[OCinBuffalo]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I don’t disagree with statistical analysis.

 

But no matter how much you insist otherwise, rarity does not equate to irrelevancy. And that was on full display today. 

 

If you insist on believing that the special teams mistakes we saw today didn’t have a negative impact on our ability to win the game, what can I say? Given that we aren’t good enough to overcome them, I’d think placing more weight on their negative impact would be obvious.

 

Anyway, it’s been interesting. I wish you luck in your further statistical analyses. 

I don't insist on impact plays not having impact.

 

I do insist that ST have a diminished, nearly down to 0, impact on all games in a season, or just on one team's schedule. The sheer scale of total # plays / # of ST plays should tell you what is in fact obvious: there simply aren't enough ST plays to have a high propensity for impact. Again, probability, not existence. Impact ST plays exist. However, due to the rule changes and skill of the kickers and punters, their propensity for impact is approaching 0. Put another way: Does Devon Hester make an NFL squad today? No. 

 

I don't need luck. I've been doing this before it was called Business Intelligence, never mind before it was called Analytics. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

I don't insist on impact plays not having impact.

 

I do insist that ST have a diminished, nearly down to 0, impact on all games in a season, or just on one team's schedule. The sheer scale of total # plays / # of ST plays should tell you what is in fact obvious: there simply aren't enough ST plays to have a high propensity for impact. Again, probability, not existence. Impact ST plays exist. However, due to the rule changes and skill of the kickers and punters, their propensity for impact is approaching 0. Put another way: Does Devon Hester make an NFL squad today? No. 

 

I don't need luck. I've been doing this before it was called Business Intelligence, never mind before it was called Analytics. 

It is true the rule changes particularly on kickoffs diminishes really big plays.  But  I would be interested in your stats background.  I have taken grad level stats and can tell you that the stats thrown around in football are commonly off base.  Advanced multivariate analysis would be needed to properly analyze things given the multitude of factors that influence any single play

[OCinBuffalo]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You want 5 starting caliber CBs, correct?  Now ignoring the idea that drafting such quality means you'd spend a ton of capital on one position vs strengthen other areas, what happens when one gets hurt?  With your plan you would not even have anyone on the roster familiar with the schemes that could fill in.  

 

Your plan is actually the antithesis of what you want to highlight.

No I do not want 5 starting caliber CBs. That's not what I am saying, because of course the cost is prohibitive. 

 

Put it this way, if you are talking about #1/#2 CBs as defined by people like Gilmore(high pick, big $ FA type, shut down corner), and having 5 of those? Not what I am saying at all. In fact, what I am saying is the opposite. Do NOT put too many resources in 1(or even 2) guy, and then have 3-4 scrubs on the field with them in nickel/dime. That defeats the entire purpose, because, as I have already stated, they target the scrubs.

 

No. What I am saying is I want "good enough" corners. In fact, I would not mind if 3rd round became "corner round". We get starter-level, but not "gonna leave and get huge $ in FA"-level, because that is counterproductive(See: Clements, Gilmore) to the entire plan. Spread the risk, spread the cash, make sure we have 5 decent guys. Approach it as a swarm, etc. This way we have a rolling group of 9 DBs(7 on roster, 2 on PS) and we think in terms of the group, not in terms of individual players.