Lil Dirty - Benched (update - He’s back and better than ever)

[Einstein's Dog]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

It's 4th in the NFL.

 

1. - 29.2

2. - 25.5

T-3. - 24.4

4. - 24.9 (McKenzie)

 

He's literally less than 2 feet/return from being in 2nd place in the NFL.

 

I find that to be impressive.

 

My point was that under 25 is not good if you're getting the ball in the end zone.  On average we would be better to just take the ball at the 25.

 

McKenzie may be doing better than other bad decision makers.  But IMO the standard for impressive should be a net of over 25 (after factoring in the block in the back penalties).

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, Einstein's Dog said:

My point was that under 25 is not good if you're getting the ball in the end zone.  On average we would be better to just take the ball at the 25.

 

McKenzie may be doing better than other bad decision makers.  But IMO the standard for impressive should be a net of over 25 (after factoring in the block in the back penalties).

 

Taking a knee or letting it go into the end zone only guarantees that the offense will NOT get better field position than the 25 (barring a kicking team penalty).

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

My point was that under 25 is not good if you're getting the ball in the end zone.  On average we would be better to just take the ball at the 25.

 

That's a big "if"

 

Overall, kickers have a TB% of 58% this year in the NFL.  We have given up 14 FG and 20 TD so 34 kickoffs.  That would imply 19 returns that were TB

 

We have 23 returns.  Someone somewhere probably has stats, but that would suggest that McKenzie has returned something like 8 kicks that could have gone for TBs, and 15 that would likely have gone for less than 25 yds without a return.

 

Be nice if good stats on this were easier to find.

 

6 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

McKenzie may be doing better than other bad decision makers.  But IMO the standard for impressive should be a net of over 25 (after factoring in the block in the back penalties).

 

I think that's a flawed analysis, ESPECIALLY after factoring in the block-in-the-back penalties.  I can't find a source of how many we've actually gotten, but it seems like "too many" to me.

 

[Einstein's Dog]

45 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think that's a flawed analysis, ESPECIALLY after factoring in the block-in-the-back penalties.  I can't find a source of how many we've actually gotten, but it seems like "too many" to me.

 

Flawed analysis?  I said it was my standard.  It's not an analysis, it's an opinion.

 

If they're not getting over 25 yds (net after penalites) they should just take it at the 25.  And if McKenzie is 4th or whatever at under 25, I think it shows a lot of returners are making bad decisions.

[3rdand12]

9 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Flawed analysis?  I said it was my standard.  It's not an analysis, it's an opinion.

 

If they're not getting over 25 yds (net after penalites) they should just take it at the 25.  And if McKenzie is 4th or whatever at under 25, I think it shows a lot of returners are making bad decisions.

I think there is  a risk/reward thing for returners. They are trusted to make big time decisions that Coaches lose sleep over  : )
 If the returner can see how the blocking is breaking down and finds it favorable , Coaches want them to take it.

Fine line , and everything in motion ?  Of course are moving as fast as can be on returns.

Everyone wants a favorable start to play from on the 1st down. But the reward is sometimes worth the risk of not breaking the 25. Fine lines my friend
 

[Einstein's Dog]

11 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

I think there is  a risk/reward thing for returners. They are trusted to make big time decisions that Coaches lose sleep over  : )
 If the returner can see how the blocking is breaking down and finds it favorable , Coaches want them to take it.

Fine line , and everything in motion ?  Of course are moving as fast as can be on returns.

Everyone wants a favorable start to play from on the 1st down. But the reward is sometimes worth the risk of not breaking the 25. Fine lines my friend
 

Yeah, the league made it so the odds favor the touch back.  When it was the 20 you should bring it out, but with the 25, I think the odds are against you.  And that's why I would like the kick returner average to be over 25.  

[3rdand12]

3 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Yeah, the league made it so the odds favor the touch back.  When it was the 20 you should bring it out, but with the 25, I think the odds are against you.  And that's why I would like the kick returner average to be over 25.  

I dig what you are saying. NFL trying to quash the return. For safety and all that. But who does not get giddy when a returner breaks or nearly breaks. You see the speed come on and know he sees a path.
 Mathematically Mr Einstein ?  I agree

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Flawed analysis?  I said it was my standard.  It's not an analysis, it's an opinion.

 

If they're not getting over 25 yds (net after penalites) they should just take it at the 25.  And if McKenzie is 4th or whatever at under 25, I think it shows a lot of returners are making bad decisions.

 

The point is, on half the kickoffs, it's not a touchback.  So taking it at the 25 is not an option. 

That is the flaw in your analysis.  Did you even read this?

 

Quote

Overall, kickers have a TB% of 58% this year in the NFL.  We have given up 14 FG and 20 TD so 34 kickoffs.  That would imply 19 returns that were TB

 

We have 23 returns.  Someone somewhere probably has stats, but that would suggest that McKenzie has returned something like 8 kicks that could have gone for TBs, and 15 that would likely have gone for less than 25 yds without a return.

 

Or did you just read "flawed analysis" and ruffle your feathers?

 

 

 

[Ayjent]

22 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The Magic Eight Ball says "unless change occurs, Highly Probable".  Not because of what he said to me, but because the attitude "you need to chill before you piss me off" after being questioned is fundamentally incompatible with the kind of discussion we're trying to foster here.

 

 

Yes, he did. 

 

Reportedly, he also had more muffs and looked less comfortable in pre-season, so it remains to be seen if he's less of an adventure than McKenzie was.

Yeah.  Stevenson put himself in some bad situations with his choices as well.  He got absolutely lit up a few times.  Inexperienced mistakes?  Maybe, but honestly I'll take McKenzie as a returner if I had to pick right now.  PR/KR is not the main issue with the team, though - so I'm not really that invested either way.  The inconsistency on both O and D lines and the playcalling on Offense that is not recognizing the issues on the O line is what is driving me crazy watching this team.  The one thing that I think gave this team holes in the run game when the line wasn't very good in years past was due to McKenzie's motion sweeps (technically a pass) and that has been something that they haven't utilized but a handful of times this season.  If they have little confidence in McKenzie's ability to keep the ball secure that makes some sense as to why they aren't using that play as much, but there are other players that can fill that role and run that play.    

 

[Einstein's Dog]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The point is, on half the kickoffs, it's not a touchback.  So taking it at the 25 is not an option. 

That is the flaw in your analysis.  Did you even read this?

 

 

Or did you just read "flawed analysis" and ruffle your feathers?

 

 

 

Half the kicks are not touchbacks because the returners decide to take it out.  Way more than half the kicks could be TBs if the returners wanted them to be.  Taking it at the 25 is an option on, in my estimate, over 80% of the time.  

 

The Bills are one of the few teams that sometimes try and kick it high and not out of the end zone.  And really the kicker could let it bounce to him in the end zone and could still take the knee and get it to the 25.

 

Generally I think most returners seem to bring it out if it is 1 to 2 yards or less in the end zone.  So if they include those 2 yards in the return yardage, it means when he brings it out, the average start is the 23 or 24, before factoring in any blocking in the back penalties.

[BuffaloRebound]

Wouldn’t it be counter-intuitive for McDermott to want Bass to kick it high and short of end zone but want his returner not to take a touchback?  

[Gugny]

8 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Half the kicks are not touchbacks because the returners decide to take it out.  Way more than half the kicks could be TBs if the returners wanted them to be.  Taking it at the 25 is an option on, in my estimate, over 80% of the time.  

 

The Bills are one of the few teams that sometimes try and kick it high and not out of the end zone.  And really the kicker could let it bounce to him in the end zone and could still take the knee and get it to the 25.

 

Generally I think most returners seem to bring it out if it is 1 to 2 yards or less in the end zone.  So if they include those 2 yards in the return yardage, it means when he brings it out, the average start is the 23 or 24, before factoring in any blocking in the back penalties.

 

I really think it's this simple:  Taking the touchback and starting at the 25 is the safe play.  There's no risk of a fumble/turnover and no risk of getting tackled prior to reaching the 25 yard line.  But you're also taking away any chance of getting better field position on a nice return.  Like it or not, McKenzie is not prone to fumbling on KO returns.  That is a verifiable fact. 

 

In 22 returns this season, McKenzie has had 14 that were 20+ yards, two that were 40+ and a long of 75 yards.

 

He is one of five returners with two returns for 40+ yards; no one in the NFL has more than two of those.

 

It's very low risk, very high reward and it makes sense to not just concede and take the touchback all the time.

 

Any statistic you choose to read will confirm this.

[GunnerBill]

12 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Yeah, the league made it so the odds favor the touch back.  When it was the 20 you should bring it out, but with the 25, I think the odds are against you.  And that's why I would like the kick returner average to be over 25.  

 

You would always choose to play it safe, fine. But if McKenzie is getting you basically to the same point WITH the chance to break a big one.... is that not worth the risk?

[BuffaloRebound]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You would always choose to play it safe, fine. But if McKenzie is getting you basically to the same point WITH the chance to break a big one.... is that not worth the risk?

i’d argue no.  Unless your offense is weak, give me the ball on the 25.  It’s not worth it to start inside your 15 yard line ten times (factoring in penalties and poor returns) for the 2 times MCKenzie gets it to the 50.  

[Einstein's Dog]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You would always choose to play it safe, fine. But if McKenzie is getting you basically to the same point WITH the chance to break a big one.... is that not worth the risk?

No, because while he could break it long with an average of just 25 that means many would be short.  And that is before factoring in fumbles and block in the back penalties.

 

I would prefer to watch Josh and the O with the ball at the 25.  I'm not excited when they bring it out, I'm hoping they can get it over the 20 with no penalty.

 

We supposedly had the best returner last year by many stats, and Roberts really hurt us against the Colts.  And this year McKenzie really hurt us.

[BuffaloRebound]

Drive start and whether to go for it on 4th down are the easiest things for analytics to correctly tell you what to do.  Very little noise there. So while we argue on message board, there’s probably a definitive answer on what’s right thing to do. The confusion stems from the contradiction of Bass purposely kicking it short and McKenzie bringing it out.  

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

No, because while he could break it long with an average of just 25 that means many would be short.  And that is before factoring in fumbles and block in the back penalties.

 

I would prefer to watch Josh and the O with the ball at the 25.  I'm not excited when they bring it out, I'm hoping they can get it over the 20 with no penalty.

 

We supposedly had the best returner last year by many stats, and Roberts really hurt us against the Colts.  And this year McKenzie really hurt us.

 

It isn't about being excited. It's about if the average is almost the same as just taking a touchback then the risk is small for the potential gain. Yes, the mistakes when they come hurt. But it is just a safety first, no risk, approach. It is akin to saying always punt at midfield on 4th down. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, BuffaloRebound said:

Drive start and whether to go for it on 4th down are the easiest things for analytics to correctly tell you what to do.  Very little noise there. So while we argue on message board, there’s probably a definitive answer on what’s right thing to do. The confusion stems from the contradiction of Bass purposely kicking it short and McKenzie bringing it out.  

 

I don't think there is a contradiction. They love their coverage units. They were 3rd best in the NFL last year giving up only 17.9 yards per return. They are not quite as good this year (9th at 19.97). It's about personnel. They have good return men so why not use them, and good coverage units so why not sure them? 

[Einstein's Dog]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It isn't about being excited. It's about if the average is almost the same as just taking a touchback then the risk is small for the potential gain. Yes, the mistakes when they come hurt. But it is just a safety first, no risk, approach. It is akin to saying always punt at midfield on 4th down. 

It is the opposite of saying always punt from midfield. 

 

The analytics and averages are showing it's a bad decision.  If his average is under 25 and he is usually taking it from 2 yards deep, it's just a bad choice.  And that is before factoring in the fumbles and penalties.

[BuffaloRebound]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think there is a contradiction. They love their coverage units. They were 3rd best in the NFL last year giving up only 17.9 yards per return. They are not quite as good this year (9th at 19.97). It's about personnel. They have good return men so why not use them, and good coverage units so why not sure them? 

I suppose your right.  Can’t imagine any team uses as many roster spots on Special Teams-only players as Bills, so waste not to try to take advantage of that.